Shaun Woodward: I have indeed received a number of representations. It may be worth reminding the House that following the reinvestment and reform package in 2002, five sites were transferred to the Executive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are in correspondence with the Executive on questions to do with further sites being made available that arose following the joint declaration.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. May I congratulate him and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on the work that they have done to try to attract investment to Northern Ireland? Obviously, I wish every success to the investment conference in May, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will support in every way that we can. The gifting of military sites is obviously an important issue for the Assembly and the Executive, and the five sites that were gifted in 2002 are an important part of the process. Discussions are taking place with Members of the Assembly and the Executive, and with the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty), about the two sites in Omagh that are under discussion. I do not want to raise expectations about what the Government may be able to do, but I should just say that the proposal for an educational campus is an extremely good and imaginative one. The Government remain committed to helping to encourage investment and development in Northern Ireland in every way that we can, as we did through the £18 billion investment package and the comprehensive spending review.

Laurence Robertson: Given that before demilitarisation in south Armagh the police expressed concern about their ability to deal with the security situation there, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of general safety in the area, and the ability of people there to work with the police? No arrests have been made following the Paul Quinn murder, and there has been an increase in fuel smuggling. Is not the situation in south Armagh rather difficult? How happy is he with the situation there?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues about the security situation in south Armagh, particularly in relation to the investigation into the murder of Paul Quinn, which everybody has condemned. I met Paul's parents immediately before Christmas to discuss the progress of the ongoing police investigation, which, as hon. Members will know, is being conducted by the Garda, because the murder took place south of the border. There is extremely close co-operation between the Garda and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the Chief Constable has observed that there is unprecedented co-operation from the community in south Armagh, but it is of course a very difficult investigation.
	On the wider issue of criminality in south Armagh, as Independent Monitoring Commission reports have observed, there are clearly still problems of criminality in that part of Northern Ireland but, again, that should be seen in the context of an improving situation, improving—

David Taylor: As Northern Ireland's institutions bed down, devolved government is starting to deliver a shared future of peace and partnership for nationalists and Unionists—a future of which a past generation, involved in that all too recent nightmare of sectarian violence, could only have dreamed. Is not the logical next step to encourage a political realignment and framework on the island of Ireland under which more parties are organised on a 32-county basis, thereby denying Sinn Fein fundamentalists the effective free reign that they too often enjoy?

Nigel Dodds: In welcoming the progress that has been made in devolution in Northern Ireland in terms of stability moving forward, does the Secretary of State accept that in both communities in Northern Ireland there is little appetite for the devolution of policing and justice powers? Does he accept that as far we are concerned, it is not on the agenda? Does he further accept that continuing to push against a door that is not only locked, but triple locked, is counter-productive?

Shaun Woodward: There are many matters on which I would be delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on the proposition that people in Northern Ireland are not looking forward to further devolution of policing and criminal justice, I beg to disagree. Opinion polling shows that more than 60 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland now want the Executive and the Assembly to make progress on the second stage of devolution. That is a matter on which Members have been elected to the Assembly in Northern Ireland and it is what people in Northern Ireland expect. It flows from the St. Andrew's agreement, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to make progress on the matter as quickly as is sensible.

Mark Durkan: May I join the Secretary of State in recognising how well institutions are working. That goes to show that when everyone is committed to allowing arrangements to work, they will work well. If we want to add to the effectiveness of the institutions of devolution, surely we need to add to the confidence by ensuring the devolution of justice and policing, not just to complete the devolution project and the policing change, but so that all parties can unite to defy and deny the dangerous lie coming from dissident republicans that the policing arrangements are about Crown forces and the British police force. The best way of all parties uniting against the agenda of dissident republicans is to secure the devolution of justice and policing.

Shaun Woodward: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The best way of demonstrating that to every dissident in Northern Ireland is that politicians are able to reflect what people who live and work in Northern Ireland want, which is the second stage of devolution of policing and criminal justice. In relation to the investment conference and attracting investment, there could be no greater show of the future stability of Northern Ireland than local politicians embracing the devolution of policing and criminal justice sooner rather than later.

David Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to make sure that the long-term settlement in Northern Ireland works is through the expansion of integrated education? At present 95 per cent. of children do not meet people from other cultures. What can he do to encourage integrated education?

Shaun Woodward: I am sorry to disturb the cosy consensus again, but I do not really think that it is a judgment of right and wrong. Most Northern Ireland politicians believe that it is right to move to stage two; the issue is when. Therefore, this is not a matter of right and wrong; it is a matter of whether we should move within the St. Andrews timetable, which I believe that we should, and on which the Government will be ready to deliver. It is a matter for consensus to be achieved between the politicians and the Executive, but whenever they stand ready to ask for it, we will be ready to deliver devolution, and I believe that the confidence will be there to deliver that this year.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that antisocial behaviour is an issue throughout the United Kingdom, in his constituency and mine and throughout Northern Ireland. He makes an interesting suggestion, although it would need more than my agreement before such a taskforce could be established, but I am happy to consider his proposal, to discuss it with ministerial colleagues and to report back to him. But most important of all is that we must learn the lessons of good practice wherever they occur throughout the United Kingdom.

Paul Goggins: I do not accept the argument on resources; we have just had a superb settlement on financing policing for the next three financial years. It will enable the Policing Board and the Chief Constable to keep in place 7,500 police officers in Northern Ireland over the next three years.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the police need to be applied and focused at the community level. Indeed, the Chief Constable himself is committed to the development of community policing in Northern Ireland and to working in partnership with other agencies and the community. The police cannot resolve the issues alone; they have to work with other partners. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the PSNI is committed to that.

Mr. Speaker: Will the House come to order? This corner is very noisy indeed.

Michael Mates: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Chief Constable feels that he is being severely held back by the amount of time that his force is having to spend looking back over past matters and not getting on with matters such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned—the joint pursuit of those responsible for the drugs problem. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the Chief Constable is allowed to get on with his job, which is policing for today and tomorrow rather than so much for yesterday?

Nicholas Clegg: This is going to be an expensive year for the countless British families who face fuel bills of £1,000 or more for the first time. With as many as 4 million British families unable to afford their fuel bills, does the Prime Minister seriously think that a single letter from the Chancellor to the energy regulator is an adequate response?

Gordon Brown: Let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to the leadership of the Liberal party. I look forward to working with him on many of the issues facing the country. I have said to him in our private conversations that there is an open door for him, and we are ready to discuss the major issues that affect the country where there is common ground.
	As far as fuel prices are concerned, it is regrettable that utility prices have to rise, which is as a result of a 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. rise in the cost of coal, gas and electricity. That, in turn, is the result of factors that are hitting every economy in the world. What we have done in Britain over the last few years is devote £12 billion to fuel poverty issues. We have had the winter allowance, which I believe the hon. Gentleman's party did not support, and other allowances to help with energy bills. Only in the last few days, companies have announced that those amounts will rise from £40 million to £56 million in order to protect energy users. We will do everything in our power to avoid fuel poverty in this country.

Gordon Brown: In the last 10 years, there have been more than 300,000 more people in higher and further education. We want to create more institutions of higher education—including universities—in areas that currently do not have that facility, and my hon. Friend has put the case eloquently for new facilities in a range of areas in her constituency. I think it right to say that we want to increase the number of universities, further education colleges and colleges generally in cities and towns that do not already have them, and that will be a big feature of future education in this country.

Paddy Tipping: In the 60th year of the NHS, there remain major challenges—health inequalities and the need to provide preventive care. Will the Prime Minister ensure that in the light of the statement he made on Monday, areas of disadvantage such as the Nottinghamshire coalfield receive sufficient focus and a fair share of resources?

Gordon Brown: When I arrived at the Treasury, I was told that, because inflation was rising and as a result of the failure of the previous Conservative Government to increase interest rates, interest rates had to rise. That was the first statement made to me at the Treasury. That is why we made the Bank of England independent, opposed by the Conservative party, and that is why, as a result of our actions, interest rates are half what they were under the Conservative Government on average, inflation is half what it was, and employment is at a record level. We are proud of our record as a Labour Government.

Anne Begg: What is my right hon. Friend's analysis of the best way to get people from welfare into work? Is it the expansion of the new deal, pathways to work and good-quality child care to help people to overcome the barriers that they face, or is it to force them into work gangs—otherwise, they will be stripped of all their benefit?

Gordon Brown: A consultation is taking place at the moment. I understand that it goes through to the end of February. The proposal is for a third passenger runway at Heathrow. I believe that many people think that that is in the national interest, but I also believe that local views must be taken into account and that is why the consultation is taking place at the moment.

Helen Southworth: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements regarding the safeguarding of runaway and missing children; and for connected purposes.
	Every year in the United Kingdom, more than 100,000 children go missing from home or care. Most of them return home safely, but research by the Children's Society indicates that about 10,000 children every year are hurt or harmed while they are missing. Many thousands of those children are running away to escape abuse in the first place; they have no safe home to return to. Some children are hurt very severely while they are away and suffer lifelong consequences. Vulnerable children on their own are targeted by predatory adults. Evidence from police and children's charities has identified children drawn into prostitution, trafficked or groomed into drug-running by adults who pretend friendship. Some children disappear without trace. Police estimate that about 50 children every year die or are killed while they are missing; that is a child death each week that could be prevented.
	All such figures are estimates because, astonishingly, there is no requirement for data to be recorded or collected nationally; and without data identifying need, statutory bodies are not allocating resources to safeguard these vulnerable children. A small number of police forces are leading initiatives to identify and protect runaway and missing children and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued guidance on the management and reporting of missing persons in 2005, but a number of police forces are still using paper-based systems. Better information is still available nationally on missing cars than on missing children. Police have a key performance indicator set by the Government on vehicle crime, so they allocate resources and collect information. Children are more important than cars, but the Department for Children, Schools and Families—the lead Department—collects no data on runaway and missing children.
	Recently, a welcome announcement was made that children missing from home and care will be included as a national performance indicator for local authorities from April 2009. But the relationship between the police and local authorities is crucial, because people report a missing child to the police, not the local authority. Police forces must have a proper and effective method of collecting and analysing information about missing children. Some 40 per cent. of police forces are unable to provide information about the level of need in respect of runaway and missing children in their area.
	In November 2005, and again in January 2007, this House gave consent to publish a Bill to protect runaway and missing children. Both Bills received support from Missing People, the Children's Society, Parents and Abducted Children Together, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Crisis, the lead officer for runaways from the Association of Chief Police Officers and many hon. Members. In the previous Session, more than 200 hon. Members supported the call for time to be granted for this Bill's consideration. It does not seem too much to ask that vulnerable children are identified so that they can be helped, that information is collected when a child is reported missing to the police and that there is effective co-ordination between the police, health authorities and local authorities.
	We must ensure that a child who is calling for help can get it. In October, the sponsors of this Bill and other hon. Members held parliamentary hearings, where we received evidence from a range of charities, police forces, local authorities and Government bodies. We heard about some excellent joint local working between the police, local authorities and voluntary organisations. Such partnerships demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the incidence of running away, in better protecting children who had gone missing and in tackling predatory adults who target runaway children to prey on them. Such effective partnerships are few and far between, and the reality for many children is bleak, with no local service either in place or planned.
	The Children's Society has just completed an extensive review of services for runaways in England on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. It told us that there was exemplary practice in few locations and that adequate services do not exist in the majority of places. The survey identified that only about 12 per cent. of local authorities have organised responses to the needs of young runways. More than two thirds of local authorities are not even planning a response, despite the fact that having a plan is part of the local authority guidance issued under a local authority circular by the Department of Health in 2002. More than two thirds of local authorities are not fulfilling even that part of the existing guidance, and that serious failure is leaving some very vulnerable children and young people without any protection. Poor data collection is making it impossible to identify failures or to direct resources and allocate priorities. We received a wealth of evidence relating to real dangers that are being faced by some young people who are alone in Britain's streets today and identifying that this issue must be made a clear and urgent safeguarding priority.
	Lancashire police's "Mountains into Molehills" project produced significant evidence of risk levels to young individuals and the successful results of early intervention. The force also identified the hugely wasteful cost to police authorities and the hugely attritional effect on children's life chances of having only a reactive approach to missing children. It worked out that just investigating cases was costing Lancashire police about £6.2 million a year. Some 77 per cent. of the force's missing person cases involved young people under the age of 18, and the same people were going missing over and over again—one girl from a care home was the subject of 78 missing person investigations. Three children did not survive; one was killed in a road traffic collision while missing, one was murdered and her body was never found and the other visited some adults who had chaotic lifestyles and who plied her with drink and prescription drugs, and she died as a result.
	Many runaway children return home safely, but we repeatedly heard evidence of children being targeted by predatory adults for sexual or drug-related exploitation. Such children were being encouraged to run away repeatedly by people who were pretending to be their friends. The police's ability to tackle such predators depends on the good retrieval and recording of information from young victims, who often feel no trust in authority figures.
	The most effective local action depends on a good working relationship between police, local authorities, health authorities and the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector was consistently cited as a key partner because of its role as a trusted friend for young people. However, despite their crucial role in supporting children at risk, most of the charities working to provide support for runaway and missing children are uncertain about continued funding for their work. Most do not know whether they will have funding to continue in just three months' time. Even Missing People, the national charity that provides 24/7 helplines for missing people and their families and a runaway helpline that took 50,000 calls last year, receives only modest core support from Government and does not know whether it will receive any funding beyond March this year. More alarmingly, the National Policing Improvement Agency, which took responsibility for missing people, including missing children, from September, has been allocated a budget of only £261,000 from the Home Office in this financial year.
	ACPO has calculated that the social cost of policing runaway and missing children is £220 million a year, which is set against a total Government investment to tackle the issue of £1.1 million in the last year. It beggars belief. Targeted early intervention, using data to identify children at risk and involving senior-level leadership are proven to reduce the number of children who run away, to help those who do run and to tackle the underlying problems. Early intervention saves money and saves children. Urgent action must be taken to make the simple changes that are needed to reduce the number of children who run away or go missing in the first place and to ensure the immediate safety of those children who go missing. The Bill is a simple measure to require the collection and reporting of information. It is our job to protect those children and it is about time we did it. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Helen Southworth, Ann Coffey, Dan Norris, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Russell Brown, Alan Keen, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Kevin Barron, Ms Dari Taylor, Annette Brooke and John Bercow.

Richard Shepherd: I do not understand the logic of the Minister's argument. He concedes the position of those who oppose this dire programme motion and says that we must complete our deliberations in the time available, but it is in the Government's power to ensure that legislation is not forced or rushed through. It should not be left to the House of Lords to deal with the Bill, so why do the Government not withdraw the motion so that we can adopt a proper approach to the business?

Edward Garnier: May I begin by congratulating the Minister on his ability to keep a straight face?
	This Bill was first presented to the House before the summer recess and its Second Reading debate took place in the spillover period of the previous Session. In those days—at a time when the Government and their spin doctors were threading their wobbly way through the Corridors, bars and Lobbies of this building, having returned from the hazy pleasure domes of Bournemouth—a general election was in the air. We all expected the Prime Minister to announce when it would be held: certainly, the topic and was being spoken of by journalists and by the younger and more excitable members of the Cabinet.
	Indeed, political commentators were promised not only an election in the first week of November but a crushing victory for the Labour party that would see the end of the Conservatives as a credible party of opposition. What that meant, of course, was that the Bill that we now have the misfortune to be considering was intended to die with the Parliament. It was, as anyone who has given it even the most cursory glance will know, a disastrously muddled Bill. As I suspected when it was published—and my suspicions have only got stronger since—the Bill was not meant to be passed into law; instead, it was intended as a headline catcher to give the impression that the Government, despite the departure of Tony Blair, were still at work.
	Today is a dark day for the House and for parliamentary democracy as a whole. The Government—who do not enjoy the public's trust or confidence, or the respect of the membership of this House—now tell us that this Bill should complete its remaining stages by 7.45 pm, or possibly earlier. Were this a 10-clause Bill that had gone through Committee with a few amendments, this timetable would not be objectionable and the motion would pass without debate, let alone a Division, but let us see what sort of Bill this is and the timetable into which the Government intend to fit our debate. The Bill that left Committee bore little resemblance to the Bill was debated on Second Reading, and the Bill that we are debating this afternoon bears little resemblance to the one that left Committee. It had 128 clauses and 23 schedules on Second Reading.
	It was, by any standards, a large Bill. That had much to do with the fact that it was the product of two ministries, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I suspect that Ministers from both Departments would privately prefer that this Bill had nothing to do with them because neither ministerial team wants to take responsibility for the mess it has become—and I do not blame them. Success has a thousand parents and failure is always an orphan, and this Bill is a legislative failure. It has been used as a dumping ground for every half or ill-considered idea that has been languishing on the shelves of the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and Downing street.
	We heard evidence in Committee from several witnesses who pointed out numerous deficiencies in the Bill that were the result of the omission of necessary or desirable provisions and the inclusion of provisions that would not work or were not likely to deal with the problem they were said to be curing. Of course, the Government paid no attention to that.
	Ministers have seen this Bill—as will become evident this afternoon—not as an opportunity to improve the criminal law, but as a chance to invent new laws and offences and to stick them, like decorations on a Christmas tree, anywhere they could reach. It was a mis-shapen tree in the first place—how else can one describe a Bill that deals with youth justice, adult sentencing, the creation of a commissioner for offender management and prisons, a Northern Ireland commissioner for prison complaints, proceedings in magistrates courts, international co-operation in criminal justice matters, violent offender orders, antisocial behaviour and disturbances in hospitals, parenting orders, financial assistance for police authorities, inspection of police authorities, misconduct proceedings against police officers, special immigration status, the disclosure of information about sex offenders, sales of tobacco to those under 18, and amendments to armed forces legislation?
	I now come to a stark illustration of the chaotic nature of this incoherent Bill, because the following subjects are not just in the same Bill, but in the same part of the Bill. Part 7 includes provisions on pornography, prostitution, sex offences committed abroad, adoption and offences relating to nuclear facilities.
	It gets worse, because in Committee the Government introduced 85 new clauses and 11 new schedules, only one of which—that covering the offence of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation—was mentioned on Second Reading. Where have the Government stuck this addition? It is to be found in clause 107—right next to clause 108 on offences relating to the protection of nuclear material and facilities. In addition, the Government introduced 400 amendments in Committee. We have a Bill that now—by that I mean as at midday today—runs to 176 clauses and 34 schedules. Some of those schedules have as many as five, eight or 10 separate parts. Today we have a Bill that can only be contained in two volumes of 121 and 131 pages respectively, whereas on Second Reading it was contained in one volume, albeit big enough at 239 pages.
	One might have thought that the Government would stop there, but, no, not content with the mess they have already created, they have sought to go further. A further 204 new Government provisions—new clauses, new schedules and amendments—have been tabled for discussion today. Some were tabled as recently as Monday, and some were tabled at the end of last week before the House returned. Issues as important to the management of our prisons as the restoration of the statutory denial of prison officers' right to strike—a fundamental U-turn in Government policy—were brought forward only on Monday, although quite where that fits into the long title escapes me at the moment; further elucidation might be provided in the short debate to come.
	Government proposals on issues as important as the repatriation of foreign prisoners and the return of British criminals from abroad, sentences for public protection and for serious sex offenders, on extended sentences—whether time spent on tag before sentence is to be treated the same as time spent in custody before sentence—and the adjustment in the law of self-defence have all been put before the House for the first time today.
	This timetable motion, even if it permits us to debate just a few of these important issues for the first time in this House and even if it allows us seven hours from now, is not just inadequate: it is an abuse of power and an affront to this House and the public on whose behalf we make laws. The Government have the numerical majority in the House so I have no doubt what the result of the Division will be. But that is not the point. This is not the Bill that came to this House in October. This is not the Bill that the House permitted to carry over into the new Session. This is not the Bill that Ministers and other witnesses gave evidence about in October. This is not the Bill that left Committee after 16 sittings on 29 November. This is not even the Bill that the House expected to be dealing with even as recently as last Wednesday. This is a vastly expanded, vastly more incoherent and vastly more ridiculous Bill than it was at any stage before today.
	I said to the Minister for State last year that this Bill was a plum duff with a lot more duff than plums. In response, the Government have added to the duff, but given us no time to digest it. The Government are beyond hope and beyond rescue, but this House need not follow them into the abyss. Let us do what we were elected to do—hold this Government to account. Let us throw out this disgraceful, shameful motion.

Stewart Hosie: When the Bill was published, its territorial extent was described. Only minor matters related to Scotland—issues to do with the commissioner for offender management, nuclear material and facilities, the Data Protection Act 1998, the British Transport police, defence policing, and immigration status for foreign nationals. The explanatory notes said that there would be no requirement for a consent to legislate motion. By and large, the measures seemed reasonable. However, I understand that there has since been published in the Scottish Parliament an intention to pass a consent to legislate motion in relation to bribery and corruption by foreign officers, violent offender orders and the repatriation of foreign prisoners. We will not, or are very unlikely to, get to debate the latter two issues, so in trying to defend the programme motion, will the Minister tell us what the extent is of the changes to Government amendments, which now require a consent to legislate motion from the Scottish Parliament?

David Hanson: On Monday my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, in an unprecedented way, made a statement to the House telling hon. Members that he was introducing the clauses that are before us today. We have an opportunity today to debate those clauses and the points brought before the House, and I repeat that we had 47 hours in Committee, with late nights—which as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said was very friendly Committee, and—

Jack Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the simple fact is that I made the judgment during the period between summer 1994 and 1997. I do not recall any pressure—except from the Prison Officers Association, which I explained I could not accept—to include a specific commitment to repeal section 127, and no such commitment went into the manifesto. I do not recall any suggestion at the so-called clause 5 meetings that take place with the national executive, or at meetings of the shadow Cabinet of the day, that we should have such a specific commitment, nor was one made.
	Winding forward, I have set out—as did Paul Boateng on my behalf in 2000—how we have sought to negotiate a voluntary agreement and a comprehensive package of reforms of industrial relations in the Prison Service to obviate the need for reliance on section 127. That is what Paul Boateng told the House on my behalf in summer 2000. We introduced the pay review body and the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), took the matter forward with the then Prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). There was then a series of intensive negotiations with the POA about establishing a new, comprehensive voluntary agreement in return for a suspension and/or repeal of section 127.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, who led those negotiations, has authorised me to say that throughout the negotiations with the POA it was made clear at every stage that the voluntary agreement to which we could assent had to include a comprehensive and legally binding undertaking by the association not to take industrial action. It was only in respect of that that the Government moved, by an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, to repeal section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. When that repeal occurred, it was made clear—initially in the other place because that was where it was dealt with, and subsequently in this House—by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who had taken over as Prisons Minister, that
	"If the POA gives notice to terminate the agreement with no alternative arrangements being in place, the Secretary of State would ask Parliament to reintroduce statutory constraints such as existed prior to disapplication of Section 127."—[ Official Report, 4 September 2006; Vol. 449, c. 1897W.]
	That is absolutely fundamental to this part of the story, which is why I ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as the House more generally, to support the introduction of what will be a reserve power in the event that we cannot reach a further voluntary agreement.
	By the time that the POA had signed up to the 2005 joint industrial relations procedural agreement, or JIRPA, it had voluntarily accepted that whatever else happened in the Prison Service, there could not be industrial action because of the risk to public safety and, I have to say, to the welfare of prisoners. We saw on 29 August the serious risk to prisoners if there is industrial action or a strike: they are literally locked in their cells with no idea when the next meal or exercise is coming, and the quite large number of prisoners with health needs have no idea when their medication will next turn up.
	The POA accepted that, but now in a round robin to MPs it says that it only signed up to the agreement under duress—its exact words. But that is not the case. It did not sign up to it under duress, but voluntarily. Indeed, I think that the matter went to a delegate conference. The association examined every single word in that agreement. It signed it and accepted the case voluntarily that I am now making to the House, which is that we have to have arrangements for dealing with industrial disputes in the Prison Service other than the possibility of industrial action because of the risk to the public and the dangers to the welfare of prisoners.

Geraldine Smith: But they are withdrawing from it.

Jack Straw: They are withdrawing from it, but they knew precisely what the arrangement was if they withdrew from it—we would have no alternative but to reinstate the equivalent of section 127.

Jack Straw: I am ready to give this very clear undertaking. If the powers have to be brought in on Royal Assent, the issue of the affirmative procedure would not arise, because it would have been the subject of considerable debate backwards and forwards in any case. But if, as I hope that we can achieve, they start off as reserve powers, I am ready to ensure that amendments are made to this part of the Bill in the other place, whereby the reintroduction of those powers could only take place through the affirmative procedure. I am happy to consider the reverse situation, whereby they would be turned off, but I do not think that anyone would want that. Once they exist as reserve powers, or have been turned off, their reintroduction could only take place through the affirmative procedure.
	I am grateful to the House for listening to me. I have taken a lot of interventions, which I hope has been helpful. I commend the new clause to the House.

Nick Herbert: I shall try to take as little time as possible because I suspect that other hon. Members might wish to contribute to the debate.
	The Secretary of State seemed to show little understanding of why the Prison Officers Association is so angry about his statement on Monday. It was taken by surprise by his statement, in the same way that he claims to have been taken by surprise by its wildcat action last year. Far from the Government being entirely consistent, as he claimed, part of that anger arises because the Government's explanation as to the history of the legislation and the action that they are now taking has not been straightforward.
	On Monday, and again today, the Secretary of State denied that the Labour party had fought tooth and nail against the legislation that outlawed strike action. He took umbrage at the suggestion. We have already heard about the letter from Tony Blair when he was shadow Home Secretary, shortly before he became leader, to the Prison Officers Association. Mr. Blair made it clear in that letter that
	"we have strongly opposed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill on a number of Clauses which represented a wholly unwarranted attack on the working rights of prison officers".
	What is the difference between fighting tooth and nail against such measures and strong opposition? As has been admitted, the Labour party originally opposed the legislation.
	On Monday, the Secretary of State also said, and he has repeated, that no undertakings were given to repeal section 127. Again, Tony Blair's letter is explicit. In 1994, he told the Prison Officers Association:
	"An incoming Labour Government will want to put this situation right".
	It was not just Tony Blair as shadow Home Secretary who was making those promises; Labour Opposition spokesmen were going around the country making such undertakings, giving the impression to members of the POA that section 127 was not only being resisted but would be repealed. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he was shadow Employment Secretary in 1994, won great applause, as the record shows, at what was no doubt a Labour party conference, when he talked about the Labour party's decency agenda. He said:
	"we will revert and give Prison Officers the right as employees in an employment situation doing a decent and responsible job".
	Is it not absolutely clear that the unions were given the impression that section 127 would go? It does the Justice Secretary no good at all to seek to suggest otherwise now.
	It is surprising that the Prison Officers Association should have been moved to issue a note yesterday saying:
	"It seems to us that despite repeated guarantees, the Labour Party in Government cannot be trusted to honour their promises".
	Of course, the Opposition have known that for some time, but it comes to something when a union is forced to issue such a statement.
	The fact is that whatever the subsequent justifications, the Labour party opposed the legislation originally, and promised to repeal it. It did not do so fully until three years ago, when it replaced it with a voluntary agreement, which the country was assured would deliver the same protection for prisons as had been delivered by the no-strike provisions. Now, three years later, the Secretary of State is forced into the humiliating position of having to come back and reintroduce provisionally that same legislation.

Nick Herbert: The question I put to the Justice Secretary on Monday, which he did not answer, is why the Government repealed the legislation in the first place. Is it not clear that it was a mistake to do so? If it was not a mistake, why are the Government now coming before the House, after giving 48 hours' notice, to reinstate legislation that they had previously removed? The Government have not yet satisfactorily explained why they took that action in the first place.
	The scrutiny Committee was clear that the protection afforded was not to the same standard as a no-strike agreement. The unions thought that they had a deal. The quid pro quo for having a no-strike agreement was that there would be a pay review and that any award would be honoured. Today, the Secretary of State justified the staging of the review—in part, the cause of this grievance—by saying that there were "exceptional economic circumstances", which is why the award could not be honoured in full. Conservative Members have been constantly told that we are living through a golden economic age with successive years of economic growth. Now it appears, in the words of the Justice Secretary, that there are "exceptional economic circumstances", which means that this award and that of the police cannot be paid. We are apparently living in such dire economic straits that the awards cannot be honoured. That breach of the deal that the Prison Officers Association believed it had has driven its anger about current arrangements. As I said on Monday, the POA is also concerned about the conditions in prisons over which the Government have presided.

Nick Herbert: Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, the statutory ban would have afforded greater protection for the public and the wildcat action could not have taken place. Presumably, the fact that the Government have come before the House to reinstate the ban demonstrates that they agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is indeed necessary to have statutory protection.
	On Monday, the Justice Secretary said, and I agree with him, that
	"it cannot be acceptable for prisoners to be locked in their cells for an indeterminate period"—[ Official Report, 7 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 40.]
	Anyone who has visited prisons will know of the great difficulties that prison governors have in dealing with inmates locked up for whole days with only a few staff on account of the wildcat action. Prisons must be places of safety; there is no place in them for such industrial action.
	We are aware that locking up prisoners for long periods of time is rumoured to be about to happen this summer on account of the budgetary situation in the Prison Service. I would be happy if the right hon. Gentleman were to correct me, but I understand that there are proposals to have lockdowns in prisons for entire weekends, during which prisoners will be confined to their cells as there are insufficient staff to look after them. I thus find it surprising to hear the Justice Secretary talking about the unacceptability of locking prisoners up for long periods.
	We will support the Government in the reintroduction of this power—

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that we need to be sensitive about the rights of prison officers, and I understand that, but we also need to be sensitive about the rights of prisoners. Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to what happened at Strangeways in the early 1990s, when a number of prisoners on rule 43 were effectively attacked in the prison? That is what happens when order in prisons breaks down. We must bear in mind that prisoners are very vulnerable, and are at risk from other prisoners. We cannot tolerate circumstances in which order in prisons cannot be maintained.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who talked a great deal of common sense. He spoke of the danger of our shooting ourselves in the foot. I suspect that the foot is well and truly shot already by the actions that have been taken, and in particular by the circumstances that have led to what the Lord Chancellor has done today.
	The problem is not, in fact, what is proposed. We would all prefer a voluntary agreement to a statutory agreement if it could be made to work, but we live in circumstances in which wildcat action took place, and that cannot be ignored. As I said on Monday and am happy to repeat, I do not believe that strike action is ever proper in a prison environment, and that is the end of it. The other side of the coin is that avoiding industrial action, and ensuring that we have an environment in which it is inconceivable, requires proper negotiating machinery and proper, binding arbitration on issues of grievance, and it requires management and Government who listen to what the people in the service are saying. It is transparently obvious that that has not been the case for a good many years.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) spoke of a cosy little teatime chat between the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The two of them could reminisce for a long time about the various deficiencies of the prison system under their respective stewardships, although it might be a rather one-sided conversation. I seem to remember that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was somewhat reticent when asked questions about the system, and famously found it difficult to give a response. The fact is, however, that we have had a significant problem with industrial relations in our prisons for a long time—in England and Wales. I made that point on Monday. Ed Sweeney's report makes it absolutely clear that the same does not apply in Scotland. We must ask ourselves in all humility what the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration in Scotland were able to do— [Interruption.] It was a Liberal Democrat Minister of Justice, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) may recall. We must ask ourselves what that Administration were able to do that eluded Ministers in this House with the same responsibilities, because we have clearly reached a point at which there has been a breakdown in trust.
	I said on Monday, and I say again now, that I believe that the staging of the pay award was a key component. If we do not treat the public services fairly by providing an independent assessment of pay, we must clearly expect a degree of resentment. All I have said to date is that I wish we were not starting from here. But we are starting from here, and I recognise the Lord Chancellor's difficulty. He must deal with a prison system in which there is recent experience of strike action, and that is not acceptable. However, the timing is most unfortunate. The fact that we are legislating today when the Sweeney report was published only on Monday, containing very positive proposals for improving the situation, is extremely regrettable. My fear is that it will poison the well in terms of future negotiations, and we will not secure the successful outcome that we all want.
	I am concerned to hear the Lord Chancellor tell his hon. Friends that he did not really mean what the new clauses and amendments say, and that he will rewrite them before the Bill goes to another place. That is yet another example of why it is wrong to legislate on Report on important matters of this kind, and expect us to rubber-stamp the legislation in the context of a very abbreviated time scale when it should be subjected to proper reflection, consideration and scrutiny before moving to the other place. It seems, however, that we must wait until the Government have done their work in the other place and brought the Bill back to us with revised wording which we hope will deal with some of the issues of scope identified by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and perhaps with the issue of the commencement on Royal Assent—which may or may not be helpful, depending on the circumstances that apply when the Bill reaches its final stages in both Houses.
	However, I have to say to the Lord Chancellor that, if there were an affirmative procedure, that would not be a problem in any case. In those circumstances, we would not need to make commencement automatic on Royal Assent. We could bring forward the affirmative procedure at that point in order to bring it into action if it is considered to be necessary to do so.
	Although I am prepared to accept for the purposes of today that the Lord Chancellor has to bring forward these proposals, I think that it is intensely regrettable that they are here. It speaks of failure of management and failure of the negotiating machinery between the Government, the management of the Prison Service and the work force. It suggests that industrial relations are at an unacceptable level in a key public service. My message to the Government is: they really must do better.

Frank Doran: We are very short of time so I will make some quick points. This is an industrial relations issue. Of course, it is necessary for the Secretary of State for Justice to see it in the context of the security of the Prison Service. He rightly talks about the statutory position. My recollection is that the Prison Act 1952 makes the prison officer a constable, but the real position is that the Prison Officers Association is different from the trade unions for the police and the Army. The trade unions for the police and Army have always been subject to limitation on their actions and in relation to strikes. For most of its existence over 70 years, the POA has been a normal trade union with all the normal trade union rights.
	If we go back to the situation in the early 1990s, there were a lot of industrial difficulties. There are still industrial difficulties in the prison system, but it was the courts that decided that prison officer trade unions were not to be allowed to operate as normal trade unions. It is an irony that the 1994 Act, introduced by the then Conservative Government, restored some of the rights that they had lost.
	There was another event, as well as that legislation and the court case. That was the inquiry into the Strangeways disaster. It is important to put on the record a couple of the decisions made by the report produced by Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Stephen Tumim. They decided that there was no need to abolish the trade union status of the prison officers. They said:
	"We take the view that industrial action by prison officers should not be made unlawful at this stage.
	Conditions in prisons have significantly contributed to the present hostile state of industrial relations, just as they have contributed to souring relations between staff and prisoners."
	That is important at a time when prisons are full and getting fuller. The report went on to say:
	"We are encouraged to take this view because we found from the Inquiry's visits to establishments that those places with satisfactory conditions and constructive regimes appeared more likely than other, less well endowed prisons, to have satisfactory industrial relations."
	Therefore, the message from that report is, "If you sort out the prisons, you will sort out the industrial relations." I know it is not quite as easy as that, but I have a strong view, which is shared by most of my colleagues on the Labour Benches—
	 It being two hours after commencement of proceedings on the  programme  motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question s necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour,  pursuant to Order [this day].
	 The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (8)(a), leave out from 'mistaken' to end of that paragraph.
	New clause 8— Amendment of the Criminal Law Act 1967 —
	'(1) The Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3 (use of force in making arrest, etc.), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A) Where a person uses force in the prevention of crime or in the defence of persons or property on another who is in any building or part of a building having entered as a trespasser or is attempting so to enter, that person shall not be guilty of any offence in respect of the use of that force unless—
	(a) the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate, and
	(b) this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using such force.
	(1B) No prosecution shall be brought against a person subject to subsection (1A) without the leave of the Attorney General.
	(1C) In this section "building or part of a building" shall have the same meaning as in section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (burglary).".'.
	New clause 9— Amendment of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 —
	'(1) The Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 NI)) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3 (use of force in making arrest, etc.), after subsection (1), insert—
	"(1A) Where a person uses force in the prevention of crime or in the defence of persons or property on another who is in any building or part of a building having entered as a trespasser or is attempting so to enter, that person shall not be guilty of any offence in respect of the use of that force unless—
	(a) the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate, and
	(b) this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using such force.
	(1B) No prosecution shall be brought against a person subject to subsection (1A) without the leave of the Attorney General.
	(1C) In this section "building or part of a building" shall have the same meaning as in section 9 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (c. 16 NI)) (burglary).".'.
	Government amendment No. 102.
	Amendment No. 125, in page 120, line 2, clause 174, at end insert—
	'(aa) section [Amendment of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967];'.
	Government amendments No. 103 and 113.

Jack Straw: Before I give way to the hon. Lady and to other Conservative Members, I want to place on record my appreciation for the way that they have brought this matter forward. We are dealing with an issue of considerable public concern. My judgment has always been that, interestingly, it is very rare for a case to become a decision for a court—normally it would be for the jury—where any reasonable person would regard it as unfair. The number of such cases that go to court are very few. In an informal trawl in 2004, the Crown Prosecution Service found 11 cases in the previous 15 where people had been prosecuted for attacking intruders, and seven of them related to household burglaries.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's openness in meeting to discuss the text. The leaflet to which he referred weakly states that if the intruder dies, the victim of the crime could be accused of
	"acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted."
	Let us consider the wording in new clause 6, in particular subsection (1)(b) and subsection (4). There is general agreement on both sides of the House that we need enhanced legal protection and greater clarity in the wording of the law. I submit to him, given that the wording is the same as was in my private Member's Bill, that our new clauses 8 and 9 are much clearer in that regard.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful that the Justice Secretary has brought up the name of my constituent, Brendon Fearon, who was involved in the Tony Martin case. It might to apposite to remind the House that when I introduced a private Member's Bill on this matter, which was taken up ably by my hon. Friends the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), Brendon Fearon said how very useful he believed the proposed changes would be, and that if what is currently enshrined in civil law were to be enshrined in criminal law, he, as a professional criminal and a recidivist, would find it deeply deterring.

Jack Straw: I want to allow the House time to debate what is proposed, so if I may, on this occasion I will shall sit down early and invite the Opposition spokesmen to speak.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned proposed new section (1A)(b) of new clause 8, which uses the phrase
	"this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using such force."
	Does he agree that the problem is that that leaves in place the very problem that arose from the Martin case? The central problem with the Court of Appeal judgment was that it said that a mistaken belief that danger was threatened could be judged subjectively, but that a real danger had to be assessed objectively, using the criterion of reasonableness. New clause 8 does not deal with that problem at all.

David Heath: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) seems incapable of understanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth); it was not answered by the Library note, which was on a totally different matter.
	The Conservatives do however have a genuine sense of grievance that the fox of which they have long been in pursuit has been comprehensively shot by the Lord Chancellor. I have been party to the many debates that we have had on the subject, courtesy of the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and others, and I have heard the stonewalling from the Government, who have said that in no circumstances were they prepared to accept that a change in the law was necessary. For them now to reverse that position takes some brass neck. However, I am prepared to accept that the Lord Chancellor is making the change for the best of reasons.
	Let us start with our shared perceptions. All parties have always shared the view that there is a problem with the way in which people in the circumstances that we are discussing are investigated and, occasionally, prosecuted. We also agree that it would be a completely inappropriate interpretation of the law, or of the duties of the police, if a person who had defended themselves, or their family, friends or property, came under suspicion, unless they had behaved entirely improperly in defending what was theirs. There have been too many occasions, although not a great number of them have come before a court, on which people have felt that when they took perfectly proper action to defend themselves against criminal offences, they came under suspicion and were investigated by the investigating and prosecuting authorities. They should have been getting the support of those authorities, rather than finding themselves in difficulties with them.

David Heath: Quite the reverse. That is the difficulty that I have with the Conservatives' position. I do not think that they have read new clause 6 properly and compared it with their own new clause 8. My view is that new clause 6 provides a more stringent safeguard for the householder than does new clause 8.
	That brings me to my second objection, which is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. Let us go back to the Tony Martin case. Let us set aside for the moment the person of Tony Martin and the circumstances of that case, and consider the point of law that was exposed by the Court of Appeal in that case. The Court of Appeal distinguished between an error made by that person as to whether he was under attack, and an error made about the danger that was posed by that attack. In the first instance, the statement is subjective.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman indicates that he is against the principles of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The policy that he advocates would ensure that many more people were in prison, that many more people were serving longer sentences, and that many more prison places would have to be found, over and above the number already planned. I am not sure that the official Opposition Front-Bench team share his view.
	We are ensuring that we bring into line the Criminal Justice Act 1991 with the sentencing provisions of the 2003 Act. That will strengthen the provisions, as it will ensure that people are on licence to the end of their sentence, not just up to the three- quarter point. That gives the public additional protection. The new arrangements will enhance public protection, because placing all such prisoners on licence, and making them subject to probation supervision for the whole of the second part of their sentence, will make them liable to recall at any time if their behaviour gives cause for concern.
	New clause 45 will restrict the use of community orders to imprisonable offences. Courts increasingly use a community order, instead of a fine, for lower-level offending, which diverts probation resources from dealing with more serious offenders, where they are most needed. The option of a community order would no longer be available for all low-level, non-imprisonable offences, removing some 6,000 community orders per year. That would restore the position that obtained before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for some types of community penalty.
	Taken together, the changes that I propose will ensure additional capacity in our prisons for serious, dangerous and violent offenders. Along with the steps being undertaken following my noble Friend Lord Carter of Coles's report on prison building capacity, including the extra places to 2012, and the three new titan prisons of 2,500 places each, those changes will contribute to building a sustainable, modern prison and criminal justice system that both protects the public from dangerous offenders and ensures fairness in our operations. I commend the new clause to the House.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend is saying? He will know that under the sentencing guidelines, which are contained in statute, the court must only impose a period of imprisonment if it is the only appropriate sentence in view of the gravity of the offence. The new clause undermines that statutory guideline.

Edward Garnier: I apologise to Lord Carter of Coles for getting his title wrong. I know that we all enjoy a joke from time to time, but we are now debating hugely serious issues which are being rattled through without proper consideration.
	Let me now deal with new clause 29, which I shall seek to use as a symbolic issue on which to divide the House. This whole group of new clauses troubles us, and contains issues that we think should be the subject of far more scrutiny and consideration. We trust that the other place will be able to give those issues that scrutiny and consideration.
	New clause 29 deals with sentences of imprisonment for public protection. I have visited, I think, 31 or 32 prisons since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition appointed me to this job just before Christmas in 2005. The category of prisoner that causes prison governors, managers of prisons and prison officers the greatest difficulty is those adult prisoners who are on indeterminate sentences for public protection and who have got beyond their tariff. They are extremely difficult to manage. Their expectation when they were sentenced—most people do not listen to the sentence that they are being given—was that they would be released at or shortly after the minimum tariff.
	The problem is that, because of the Government's mismanagement of the system, the overcrowding in the system and the churning that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) spoke about, the individuals on IPP sentences cannot get on to the relevant courses to demonstrate to the Parole Board or the licensing system that they have reached a state of behaviour that allows them to be released back into the community.

David Hanson: I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment on that issue. I have indicated in my comments today and during discussions with prison governors and others that I share the points that he has made. That is the very reason why we are making the changes today. Our aim is to ensure that we have a minimum tariff in due course, rather than a low tariff—in some cases, it is as low as 28 days.

Edward Garnier: Would that that were possible. Someone might, for example, commit a non-invasive sexual offence against a child—grossly inappropriate sexual behaviour against a child, short of some invasion of his or her body—and that might be a first offence. In looking at that offence alone, the court might take the view that a custodial sentence of under two years is appropriate. However, whereas a court might currently be able to give an IPP for that one offence, it would not be able to do so under the new regime that this Government wish to push forward in order to cope with overcrowding. That is the danger we face, and that is the problem that the Government have given us, the public, and themselves as managers and legislators.
	It is a pleasure to turn and look at you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—rudely, I was looking in the other direction. I cannot stress too highly how important it is that those convicted of such offences should be susceptible to IPPs even if the original offence is subject to a relatively low tariff. The same applies to new clause 30 and, to some extent, to new clauses 31 and 32, which address extended sentences for both those under 18 and those over 18. Under new clauses 31 and 32, if a court goes for an extended sentence of imprisonment the term has to be at least four years. We are causing too great a limit to be placed on the discretion of the sentencer in dealing with such serious cases. It gets worse, because under proposed subsections (6) of both those new clauses we would give the Secretary of State the power by order to amend proposed new subsections (2A) and (2B) of section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
	"so as to substitute a different period for the period for the time being specified in"
	those subsections. Therefore, whereas the Government want at present to say that the custodial term would be at least four years, it will be open to a Secretary of State to come to a different conclusion.
	We will not have a proper opportunity to debate this provision on the Floor of the House; it will go through as a statutory instrument. That is, I gather, the modern way of dealing with criminal justice legislation. Not only did we not have any time to debate the Bill, but we are not even permitted to have a serious debate about any amendments to the Government's provisions.
	On new clause 33, what the Minister said did not make it at all clear to me what is the necessity for proposed new paragraph (aa) to section 229(2) of the 2003 Act, as specified in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause. Why is that necessary? Why is the information about the dangerousness of the individual concerned to be restricted to activities relating to a conviction
	"in any part of the United Kingdom"?
	A foreign national defendant might have led an entirely blameless life in the United Kingdom until his conviction, but he might have a string of convictions for dangerous behaviour in other parts of the world, which the court ought to be entitled to take account of. The Government must explain why they think that provision is necessary.
	I will not be able to deal with all the amendments and new clauses in this group, as my doing so would be unfair on other Members who have things to say. However, I also point out that new clause 35 has huge hidden implications. It blithely deletes subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 247 of the 2003 Act. I remind Members that the Bill that led to that Act was the flagship Bill of the 2001 Parliament, which was going to solve all our criminal justice ills. Huge sections of that Act have yet to be brought into force, and many sections have been repealed before being brought into force, but this is yet another example where matters relating to the release on licence of prisoners serving an extended sentences are to be addressed.
	The title of new clause 45 is:
	"Restriction on power to make a community order".
	I do not understand the logic behind the proposal, and nothing that the Minister said made it easier to understand the Government's case. Clearly, it is not possible to give a community sentence to someone who has committed an offence where the penalty is fixed by law, for example, murder or some of the firearms offences, which I believe carry minimum periods of imprisonment of five years. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) here. Clearly, someone cannot be given a community sentence in such circumstances.
	Again, this issue goes back to overstretching the probation service. The reason why the Minister says that he is pushing this proposal forward is that people have been given community sentences when they ought to have been given fines and because people are in some way being placed in a position where the probation service would be further overstretched. Why do the Government not manage the criminal justice system properly, plan and have a strategic vision, instead of looking down the wrong end of the telescope?
	New clause 47 deals with the release of fine defaulters and contemnors under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and is clearly designed to alleviate prison overcrowding. That is the wrong way to look at the development of the criminal justice system. The Government should work out the appropriate thing to do with particular sorts of offences and offender. They should not empty the prisons because they have failed to plan for the consequences of their sentencing policies since 1997.
	New clauses 48 and 49 are interesting. New clause 48(2)(1A) states:
	"As soon as a long-term prisoner has served one-half of his sentence, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him on licence."
	I am surprised that the Secretary of State thinks that that is an appropriate duty for him to have. One surely ought to have some regard to the details of the character and offence of the individual prisoner in question.
	New schedules 3, 5 and 7 are very lengthy additions to the Bill. They were introduced this week, and although they are, to some extent, dependent on the new clauses that we have just been rushing through, they deserve greater attention than it is appropriate for me to give them this afternoon, given the time constraints. Thus, I shall say no more about them, save to invite Members of the other place to give them a thorough grilling when the Bill reaches there.
	I hope that the sceptical view that I have brought to the discussion of these new clauses and new schedules gives the House not only an indication of my deep concern at the way in which the Government have brought the Bill and these new aspects of it to this place, but an understanding of my concern about the substantive underlying nature of these provisions. I regret to say that the Justice Secretary and his Ministers are diluting a pledge to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and are doing so in a wholly incomprehensive and illogical fashion. I could get cross about this. I could scream and shout, but it does not do my ulcers any good and it certainly does not do the attention of the House any favours. I shall stop now, and invite those hon. Members who are as concerned as I am to consider carefully the new clauses and amendments. I trust that if the opportunity is there, they will vote with the official Opposition against new clause 29, which I have picked as a useful symbol of our expression of deep concern about the mishandling of the Bill and of this aspect of it.

David Heath: That is entirely right. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. This is not a good way of making law. It is not the way in which the House is supposed to operate. I hope that we have emphasised that point sufficiently this afternoon.
	Let me come to the general tenor of the new clauses and amendments, as I cannot deal with the detail. They contain a number of constructs that are intended to remove people from the overcrowded prison system. The Minister knows perfectly well that I agree that we have too many people in our prisons. My argument, which I have made many times, is that if we ran our penal system properly a great many people who are in the prison estate would not be there taking up places that ought to be used for those who need to be in prison for protection of the public. Sadly, the amendments do not for one moment answer the needs of the service by taking out those with mental illness, who need secure accommodation that enables them to be treated properly. It is a national disgrace that such people are kept in prison cells. The amendments do not deal with alcohol or drug addicts who find themselves in prison and do not get the proper treatment that they need. The amendments do not deal with the children in our prisons—it is a most inappropriate way of disposing of them—who do not get the developmental help that they deserve. All those factors mean that the system is not capable of providing the basic elements of rehabilitation that we ought to expect the Prison Service to achieve.
	We are dealing with a dysfunctional system. The Government are attempting to paper over the cracks by introducing an array of manoeuvres to get people out of the estate almost randomly. They are not based on any real, assessed need, but purely on various mechanistic bases that enable the prison population to be reduced. For that reason alone, I do not think that that is the right way to manage the service.
	There is a second element to the problem. What is the effect of releasing prisoners—I mean the ones who should be in prison, rather than the ones who should not—into the care of the probation service? The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is right to draw attention to the deficiencies that exist at present. The probation service is under-resourced and overstretched, just as the Prison Service is. It struggles to cope with its current work load, and it will certainly struggle with the additional burden that the proposals being considered today will impose on it.

Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a consequential problem is that the probation service is no longer able to supervise community service orders? As a result, the public have lost trust in them, and want custodial penalties to be imposed instead. The greater the burden loaded onto the probation service, therefore, the less attractive to the public the CSO option will become.

David Heath: Again I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he has touched on a very important point. Both elements of the National Offender Management Service are overstretched at present. As a result, prisons do not do the job in terms of rehabilitation and deterrence that people fondly imagine that they do, and the probation service is unable to provide a satisfactory alternative that enjoys the public confidence.
	I am full of admiration for the work that probation officers do, but I recognise the constraints under which they work. Those constraints are extreme, and they are getting worse. The Government have hugely underestimated what is needed to provide an adequate service. Even if the probation service had sufficient resources to do the job that the Government expect it to do, the problem of how to manage offenders in the system would remain. That management task will be made immeasurably more difficult by the proposals that we are considering at present. The complexities presented by the movement of prisoners out of the prison estate, or their recall back into it, will be made much worse by the announcement that the Justice Secretary slipped out in a ministerial statement yesterday. In that statement, he made it clear that he is effectively abandoning the National Offender Management Service IT system that was supposed to provide the co-ordination between the prison and probation services.
	The NOMS system was supposed to track movements around the prison estate and ensure that absurdities such as prisoners getting lost or ending up in the wrong place would not overtake the probation service as well. The Justice Secretary has decided, however, that the original IT specifications were much too ambitious, were escalating beyond his Department's control and could no longer be afforded. He has therefore determined that the system will work only in prisons and that it will not extend to the probation service.
	The Justice Secretary did not in the first instance ask the probation service what it needed to fulfil its task. In fact, it needs a very sophisticated IT system, because in some ways, probation work is more difficult than prison work. For example, prison staff can at least hope that a prisoner's location—that is, his or her cell—is known, whereas probation officers cannot know as much about their charges. As a result, we have an inadequate system that will not now be improved. When NOMS was set up, we were given a set of high expectations that have been shown to be entirely imaginary, and I fear that we will end up with system that is grossly under-resourced.
	I regret that the Secretary of State was not able to make a verbal statement to the House on these matters, as I suspect that many people will not have read his written statement. Even if they have read it, I doubt that they will have understood it. I heard the right hon. Gentleman speak on the radio last night about his proposals, and he was finding it very difficult to answer some simple questions about how NOMS would develop. If he gets the opportunity to speak again—and the time constraints under which we are working mean that our expectations on that front must remain limited—I hope that he will set out how he intends to put right the difficulties that he has created by his decisions.
	We are right to question the Government's judgment on this issue, not on the basis of reducing the prison population—they are right about that—but in respect of how they are choosing to do it, the lack of resources they are prepared to put into it and in the arbitrary nature of many of the proposals before us today.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) focused on new clause 29, and I will carefully consider the points that he made. However, I do not want to see circumstances in which IPPs are artificially extended beyond the normal tariff for an offence simply in order to address the points that he made. I fully understand his point about the lack of opportunities within the prison system to satisfy the Parole Board and others of suitability for release and the need to arrange such matters much more satisfactorily. I am not sure that knocking the provision out would help that process; it may indeed hinder it. That is why I shall consider carefully before advising my hon. Friends on which way to vote if the hon. and learned Gentleman divides the House on the matter. However, I agree with the principle that he set out. We have a chaotic system that is dishonest in its treatment of offenders and the public reaction to that. We should and must do very much better in future.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the great tragedies of the whole penal system is that an extraordinarily high proportion of prisoners are educationally or otherwise inadequate. One of the purposes—not the only purpose—of prison is to rehabilitate, by providing basic training in this and that. That is largely frustrated by overcrowding. Although I am a strong proponent of education and training in prison, it must be acknowledged that it is not being provided. My hon. Friend is right when he says that rehabilitative programmes, which would be extraordinarily useful, are not being incorporated in community service orders.
	I return to my general theme. I am extremely uneasy that we should be contemplating such a raft of very serious changes on Report, without proper discussion, without a Committee stage and without external consultation. This is precisely the sort of thing that the House should not be doing. I would be very surprised if the higher judiciary and others do not say in due course, when these matters come to the Court of Appeal, that this place has been failing in its duty.

Maria Eagle: I shall resist the provocation to deal with Opposition Members' points by going through the details of every amendment, which would defeat the whole object of my attempting to deal quickly with this group. However, I want to take up the point of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about new clause 3 and the substantive changes that it makes. I shall explain that alone, as the others are indeed minor technical and drafting amendments. Despite the annoyance expressed, I will not be provoked into going into all the details on this occasion.
	New clause 3 and Government amendments Nos. 18 to 40 and 61 to 64 contain minor drafting, technical and consequential changes to parts 4 and 5, which establish the offices of the commissioner for offender management and prisons and the Northern Ireland commissioner for prison complaints. They contain within them a few amendments that reflect a change of policy in respect of Scotland. Let me make it clear that these have been agreed with the Scottish Executive.
	In particular, the amendments extent the commissioner's remit for investigating deaths to immigration detention premises and immigration custody in Scotland, while safeguarding the roles of the Lord Advocate and procurator fiscal in relation to criminal investigations and the investigation of deaths. Given that the arrangements have been agreed with the Scottish Executive, we are not trying to do anything that would not be approved of in Scotland. The amendments will improve the coherence of the deaths remit—that awful phrase—that the new commissioner will have.
	That is the only substantive change made by any of the amendments in the group. I hope that, following my short explanation, Members will accept the amendments so that we can get on with discussing some of the other matters covered by amendments in other groups.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 5— Referral orders: extension of period for which young offender contract has effect.
	New clause 10— Extension of a referral order—
	'(1) Schedule 1 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 5(1) for "power" substitute "powers".
	(3) For paragraph 5(2) substitute—
	"(2) Those powers are the powers to revoke the referral order (or each of the referral orders) or extend it by up to 3 months.".
	(4) In paragraph 5(5) for "so dealing with the offender" substitute "revoking an order for an offence specified in sub-paragraph (4).".
	(5) In paragraph 5(6) after "The appropriate court may not exercise the" insert "revocation".'.
	New clause 18— Anti-social behaviour orders (persons under 18)—
	'(1) Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) The court may not make an anti-social behaviour order in respect of any person under the age of 18 years unless that person's anti-social acts were committed jointly with an adult.".'.
	New clause 40— Power of court to make a detention and training order—
	'In the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, after section 100(2)(b), insert—
	"(c) in relation to an offence committed after the commencement of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, unless he has previously received a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance under that paragraph.".'.
	New clause 42— Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18—
	'(1) This section applies where a person under the age of 18 years is convicted of an offence punishable with a custodial sentence other than one—
	(a) fixed by law, or
	(b) falling to be imposed under section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 or under sections 226 to 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	(2) In the title of section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences), after "general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences" insert "on offenders aged 18 or above".
	(3) In section 152(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after "where a person", insert "aged 18 or above".
	(4) After section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, insert—
	(5)
	"152A Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18
	(1) A court shall only pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18 as a measure of last resort and where—
	(a) the offence committed caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause serious physical or psychological harm to another or others, and
	(b) a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from the demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical or psychological harm.
	(2) The court shall state in open session its reasons for passing any sentence of custody under this section."'.
	Government amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
	Amendment No. 173, page 8, line 34 [Clause 12], after 'below', insert
	'if the offender is over the age of 18 years'.
	Government amendment No. 86.
	Amendment No. 129, page 17, line 10, [Clause 21] leave out from 'occasion' to end of line 11 and insert '; or
	(iii) has previously been referred to a youth offender panel under section 16 above and a further referral has been recommended by—
	(a) a member of a youth offending team,(b) an officer of a local probation team, or(c) a social worker of a local authority.'.
	Amendment No. 176, page 54, line 36 [Clause 81], leave out 'offenders aged 16 and 17' and insert
	'children or young persons aged under 18 years'.
	Government amendment No. 104.
	Amendment No. 196, page 131, line 35 [Schedule 1], leave out 'local authority residence requirement or fostering requirement' and insert 'order under Part 1'.
	Amendment No. 197, page 131, line 36, leave out from 'not' to second 'in' in line 37 and insert 'make an order under Part 1'.
	Amendment No. 198, page 131, leave out line 40 and insert—
	'(b) the offender has waived his right to legal representation, having been advised that this may have a strongly negative impact upon the outcome of his case.'.
	Amendment No. 199, page 131, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Amendment No. 200, page 132, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	Government amendments No. 105 to 107.
	Amendment No. 201, page 142, leave out lines 9 to 19.
	Amendment No. 116, page 143, line 18 [Schedule 2], leave out paragraphs 3 and 4.
	Amendment No. 202, page 144, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert 'before the appropriate court.'.
	Amendment No. 203, page 144, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 145 and insert—
	'(4A) Where the offender does not appear in answer to a summons issued under this paragraph, the appropriate court may issue a warrant for his arrest.'.
	Amendment No. 117, page 145, line 5, at end insert—
	'(za) a youth rehabilitation order is still in force, and'.
	Amendment No. 118, page 145, line 12, leave out from 'ways' to end of line 13.
	Amendment No. 204, page 145, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
	'(ba) if the youth rehabilitation order was made by a magistrates' court, by dealing with the offender, for the offence in respect of which the order was made, in any way in which the court could have dealt with the offender for that offence (had the offender been before the court to be dealt with for it); or
	(bb) if the youth rehabilitation order was made in the Crown Court, by committing the young offender in custody or releasing him on bail until he can be brought before, or appear before, the Crown Court.'.
	Amendment No. 115, page 145, line 26, at end insert—
	'(d) by placing the offender in custody for a period not exceeding 3 months.'.
	Amendment No. 205, page 145, line 26, at end insert—
	'(2A) Where the court deals with the offender under the previous subparagraph, it must send to the Crown Court—
	(a) a certificate signed by a justice of the peace certifying that the offender has failed to comply with the youth rehabilitation order in the respect certified, and such other particulars as may be desirable; and
	(b) such a certificate purporting to be so signed is admissible as evidence of the failure before the Crown Court.'.
	Amendment No. 206, page 146, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 147.
	Amendment No. 207, page 147, line 4, leave out paragraph 7.
	Amendment No. 119, page 147, line 23, at end insert—
	'(za) a youth rehabilitation order is still in force, and'.
	Amendment No. 120, page 147, line 30, leave out from 'ways' to end of line 31.
	Amendment No. 209, page 148, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 149.
	Amendment No. 210, page 213, line 19 [Schedule 16], leave out 'offenders aged 16 or 17' and insert
	'children or young persons aged under 18 years'.
	Amendment No. 211, page 213, leave out line 33.
	Amendment No. 212, page 214, line 22, leave out '16' and insert 'under 17'.
	Amendment No. 213, page 218, line 10, leave out '16 or 17' and insert 'under 18 years'.
	Government amendments Nos. 111 and 112.

David Hanson: As was pointed out earlier during debate on the programme motion, we spent considerable time on these matters in Committee. Our new clauses and amendments have been tabled to prove that that was not a complete waste of time for everyone, and to address issues raised by members of the official Opposition, and other Members, in Committee.
	New clauses 4 and 5 deal with an issue raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). New clause 4 empowers a court, on the recommendation of a youth offender panel, to revoke a referral order in the interests of justice. That will provide what I hope the hon. Gentleman was seeking—greater flexibility and discretion for the court—and in particular will allow an offender to be rewarded when all parties agree that in the light of the offender's good compliance the order should not proceed to completion. New clause 5 empowers the court, again on the recommendation of a youth offender panel, to extend a referral order by up to three months. The extension is, however, subject to the overall maximum for a referral order of 12 months, as I believe that it would be unduly onerous to exceed that period. New clause 5 negates the need for the Opposition's new clause 10, which sought to achieve much the same end. Amendments 111 and 112 are consequential on new clauses 4 and 5.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate will welcome those changes, which were made as a result of his contributions in Committee. I am sure that he will give his views shortly.
	Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 104, 106 and 107 were tabled in response to debates on Second Reading and in Committee. They create a new "intoxicating substance treatment requirement" which can be attached to a youth rehabilitation order. The issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on Second Reading, and in Committee by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate.

David Hanson: If the mutual appreciation society can continue, let me say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue on Second Reading. I am also genuinely grateful to the official Opposition and to Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for supporting the discussion in Committee. This shows that the Committee stage was helpful in teasing out issues that needed to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I am pleased that we have been able to agree on amendments which, I trust, deal with the points that were made in Committee.
	I have also tabled an amendment to the drug treatment requirement—amendment No. 105—which will allow a person with the necessary experience, as well as one with the necessary qualifications, to direct drug treatment under that requirement. That is consistent with the drug rehabilitation requirement for adults in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	Amendment No. 86 removes young offenders from the ambit of clause 12,which confers greater discretion on the judiciary's setting of a tariff when they are imposing an indeterminate sentence in exceptionally serious cases. Again, that point was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in Committee. I am happy to accommodate his suggestion.
	Four sets of amendments respond to the concerns of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North. I commend those amendments to the House. There are other amendments in the group that Members may speak to. If required, I will respond to them in due course.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I have tabled a number of the amendments in this group and I intend to speak to them, as I believe that they raise important matters to do with youth justice. I apologise in advance to other hon. Members who are waiting their turn to speak on other groups, but discussion cannot be attenuated to accommodate an insufficient programme motion.
	I want to put forward various points suggested by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, an organisation that has taken a considerable interest in the first part of the Bill, which deals with youth rehabilitation orders. At the outset, let me say that the Public Bill Committee generally supported those orders and the principles that underlie them, and that hon. Members saw them as a better focused alternative option. However, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) expressed real concern that the necessary resources must be made available so that the orders could function as intended.
	I begin by thanking the Minister of State for what he said in his remarks opening the debate on this group of amendments. I note that Government amendments Nos. 82 and 83 respond directly to points raised by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in Committee, and by others on Second Reading. It must be right to add an intoxicating substance treatment requirement to the provisions, and I am grateful to the Minister for recognising as much.
	In addition, I welcome Government amendment No. 86, which effectively replaces my amendment No. 173 and limits the effect of tariffs for indeterminate sentences for people under 18 years of age. He promised me in Committee that he would look at the matter, and he has been as good as his word. I am grateful to him for that.
	I turn now to new clause 40. In the main, our discussions in Committee on this section of the Bill were extremely positive and sensible. I am grateful to all who contributed, and considerable expertise was brought to our deliberations. In particular, should like to thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, who I thought made an excellent contribution.
	New clause 40 would ensure that a child or young person would not receive a detention or training order
	"unless he has previously received a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance".
	The aim is that the intensive supervision and surveillance option will operate in such a way as to ensure that custody for young people is the last option.
	That is an important point. When we were talking earlier about the overcrowding and other inadequacies of our prison system, I made the point that prison is very often ineffective in dealing with young people. It can be a very inappropriate disposal, and better options exist. We maintain that custody is the last resort for young offenders, and that courts should not use it as an earlier option.

David Hanson: We have had a useful debate following my opening consensual acceptance of amendments that were tabled in Committee. We have relived part of the debate in Committee, which I am sure has been of interest to other Members who have come into the Chamber for the discussion of later parts of the Bill.
	I shall respond briefly to some of the topics that were raised. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) mentioned amendment No. 129, which would allow a court to give a second referral order to an offender on the recommendation of a youth offending team, probation officer or social worker. As he knows, the referral order operates on a restorative justice principle, with offenders being required to face up to their responsibility for their actions and to make redress to their victim. It is currently restricted to first-time offenders who plead guilty. In the Bill we are seeking to allow a referral order to be available to those who plead guilty on a second conviction, where they have not received a referral order previously.
	It is a step too far to broaden that out to a second referral order. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in Committee. What we must do is address the offending behaviour of the young person. If they have not gained from the original referral order process, it is right that the court should consider other sentences. It is important that we retain the integrity of the referral order, which achieves the lowest reconviction rate of any juvenile court-awarded sentence—44 per cent. I do not wish to undermine that, and I cannot accept the amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled.
	In his welcome for the new clauses and amendments that I tabled to deal with substance misuse, the hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. All youth offending teams are funded to provide substance misuse workers to support screening, early intervention and referral to specialist services. There is also funding via the National Treatment Agency pooled treatment budget, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Funding is sufficient to meet the needs of the order.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on volatile substance misuse. I am pleased that he did so. In a former life I was involved in dealing with individuals who engaged in volatile substance misuse, and I welcome the fact that the generic examination of substance misuse will cover all aspects of that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), on behalf of himself and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), proposed that we remove the antisocial behaviour order as an option for agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour if the person is under the age of 18, unless it is also proposed to make an order on an adult co-perpetrator. I know that my hon. Friends feel strongly about the matter. They know that the main purpose of an ASBO is to protect victims, many of whom are young persons.
	In addition, ASBOs, especially when used with individual support orders, have proved very beneficial in helping young people to tackle their antisocial behaviour. This is not about criminalising young people; I want to do quite the opposite. I want to ensure that young people, via the ASBO, have a last opportunity to mend their ways before entering the criminal justice system proper. Without ASBOs, that option would not be available to agencies tasked with protecting local communities. They are an important option available for tackling antisocial behaviour. I understand the reasons why the amendments were tabled, but I am not able to accept them today. Our approach has been commended by the National Audit Office, as well as by the Home Affairs Committee, the Audit Commission and the Youth Justice Board, and it is important to ensure that we retain that part of our armoury, while if possible limiting its use.
	Amendments Nos. 116 to 120 replicate those tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Enfield, Southgate. We had a great deal of discussion on amendment No. 116, but I was not persuaded of its merits in Committee and I am not persuaded of its merits now.
	Amendments Nos. 206 and 209 will remove the power for a court to deal with a wilful and persistent breach of a youth rehabilitation order by imposing a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or custody. It is essential to preserve the credibility of the YRO as a robust and meaningful community sentence.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to new clauses 40 and 42, which seek to place further restrictions on the use of custody. Again, although I tried to adopt a spirit of co-operation, I cannot accept them and do not believe that they are necessary. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill on providing a YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance or intensive fostering requirements as alternatives to custody, and in section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there are provisions in respect of limiting the use of custody. For similar reasons, I am also unable to accept new clause 42, which would raise the custody threshold to an unacceptably high level that may put the public at significant risk.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to amendments Nos. 210 and 213 in seeking to determine whether it would appropriate to extend the youth conditional caution to 10 to 15-year-olds. Again, there is a glimpse of light for him at the end of the tunnel on this matter, in that, as I explained in Committee, I have not ruled out considering extending conditional cautions to 10 to 15-year-olds. I want to look at the matter in more detail so I am unable to bring forward such proposals at the moment, but I hope that he will take me at my word when I say that we are looking at that in a serious and effective way.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to amendments Nos. l96 to 200, which focused on legal representation for young people. I understand that a number of safeguards may already be in place to ensure that a youth will be granted publicly funded representation where necessary. I do not wish to extend the scope because it would damage and sideline the interest of justice test under the Access to Justice Act 1999. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall my letter to him of 27 October, which was a copy of a letter to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) who was a Chairman of the Committee, in which I said that since 2 October 2006, defendants appearing before magistrates and youth courts have also been required to pass a financial eligibility test in order to qualify for publicly funded representation. I also stressed that the passporting provisions on age would be extended from 1 November 2007, which means that all defendants under the age of 18 will now be exempt from the means test. I hope that that helped the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome then and today.
	I have tried to answer some of the brief points in the discussion. I hope that the Government's new clauses and amendments will be accepted and that hon. Members will understand the points that I have made in response to their concerns.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Meaning of "transgender hatred"
	29P Meaning of "transgender hatred"
	In this Part "transgender hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to transgender identity or appearance.
	 Acts intended to stir up transgender hatred
	29Q Use of words or behaviour or display or written material
	(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he intends thereby to stir up transgender hatred, or
	(b) having regard to all the circumstances transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
	(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
	(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.
	(5) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service.
	29R Publishing or distributing written material
	(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he intends thereby to stir up transgender hatred, or
	(b) having regard to all the circumstances transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
	29S Public performance of play
	(1) If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he intends thereby to stir up transgender hatred, or
	(b) having regard to all the circumstances (and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole) transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) This section does not apply to a performance given solely or primarily for one or more of the following purposes—
	(a) rehearsal,
	(b) making a recording of the performance, or
	(c) enabling the performance to be included in a programme service;
	but if it is proved that the performance was attended by persons other than those directly connected with the giving of the performance or the doing in relation to it of the things mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), the performance shall, unless the contrary is shown, be taken not to have been given solely or primarily for the purpose mentioned above.
	(3) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) a person shall not be treated as presenting a performance of a play by reason only of his taking part in it as a performer,
	(b) a person taking part as a performer in a performance directed by another shall be treated as a person who directed the performance if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person's direction, and
	(c) a person shall be taken to have directed a performance of a play given under his direction notwithstanding that he was not present during the performance;
	and a person shall not be treated as aiding or abetting the commission of an offence under this section by reason only of his taking part in a performance as a performer.
	(4) In this section "play" and "public performance" have the same meaning as in the Theatres Act 1968.
	(5) The following provisions of the Theatres Act 1968 apply in relation to an offence under this section as they apply to an offence under section 2 of that Act—
	(a) section 9 (script as evidence of what was performed),
	(b) section 10 (power to make copies of script),
	(c) section 15 (powers of entry and inspection).
	29T Distributing, showing or playing a recording
	(1) A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he intends thereby to stir up transgender hatred, or
	(b) having regard to all the circumstances transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) In this Part "recording" means any record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced; and references to the distribution, showing or playing of a recording are to its distribution, showing or playing to the public or a section of the public.
	(3) This section does not apply to the showing or playing of a recording solely for the purpose of enabling the recording to be included in a programme service.
	29U Broadcasting or including programme in programme service
	(1) If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if—
	(a) he intends thereby to stir up transgender hatred, or
	(b) having regard to all the circumstances transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) The persons are—
	(a) the person providing the programme service,
	(b) any person by whom the programme is produced or directed, and
	(c) any person by whom offending words or behaviours are used.
	 Inflammatory material
	29V Possession of inflammatory material
	(1) A person who has in his possession written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, or a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting, with a view to—
	(a) in the case of written material, its being displayed, published, distributed, or included in a programme service whether by himself or another, or
	(b) in the case of a recording, its being distributed, shown, played, or included in a programme service, whether by himself or another,
	is guilty of an offence if he intends transgender hatred to be stirred up thereby or, having regard to all the circumstances, transgender hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
	(2) For this purpose regard shall be had to such display, publication, distribution, showing, playing, or inclusion in a programme service as he has, or it may reasonably be inferred that he has, in view.
	29W Powers of entry and search
	(1) If in England and Wales a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath laid by a constable that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of written materials or a recording in contravention of section 29V, the justice may issue a warrant under his hand authorising any constable to enter and search the premises where it is suspected the material or recording is situated.
	(2) If in Scotland a sheriff or justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of written material or a recording in contravention of section 29V, the sheriff or justice may issue a warrant authorising any constable to enter and search the premises where it is suspected the material or recording is situated.
	(3) A constable entering or searching premises in pursuance of a warrant issued under this section may use reasonable force if necessary.
	(4) In this section "premises" means any place and, in particular, includes—
	(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,
	(b) any offshore installation as defined in section 12 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, and
	(c) any tent or movable structure.
	29X Power to order forfeiture
	(1) A court by or before which a person is convicted of—
	(a) an offence under section 29Q relating to the display of written material, or
	(b) an offence under section 29R, 29T or 29V,
	shall order to be forfeited any written material or recording produced to the court and shown to its satisfaction to be written material or a recording to which the offence relates.
	(2) An order made under this section shall not take effect—
	(a) in the case of an order made in proceedings in England and Wales, until the expiry of the ordinary time within which an appeal may be instituted or where an appeal is duly instituted, until its finally decided or abandoned;
	(b) in the case of an order made in proceedings in Scotland, until the expiration of the time within which, by virtue of any statute, an appeal may be instituted or, where such an appeal is duly instituted, until the appeal is finally decided or abandoned.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)—
	(a) an application for a case stated or for leave to appeal shall be treated as the institution of an appeal, and
	(b) where a decision on appeal is subject to a further appeal, the appeal is not finally determined until the expiry of the ordinary time within which a further appeal may be instituted or, where a further appeal is duly instituted, until the further appeal is finally decided or abandoned.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the lodging of an application for a stated case or note of appeal against sentence shall be treated as the institution of an appeal.
	 Supplementary provisions
	29Y Saving for reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings
	(1) Nothing in this Part applies to a fair and accurate report or proceedings in Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament.
	(2) Nothing in this Part applies to a fair and accurate report of proceedings publicly heard before a court or tribunal exercising judicial authority where the report is published contemporaneously with the proceedings or, if it is not reasonably practicable or would be unlawful to publish a report of them contemporaneously, as soon as publication is reasonably practicable and lawful.
	29YA Procedure and punishment
	(1) No proceedings for an offence under this Part may be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
	(2) For the purposes of the rules in England and Wales against charging more than one offence in the same count or information, each of sections 29Q to 29V creates one offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable—
	(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both;
	(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
	29YB Offences by corporations
	(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Part and it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
	(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as it applies to a director.
	29YC Interpretation
	In this Part—
	"distribute", and related expressions, shall be construed in accordance with section 29R(2) (written material) and section 29T(2) (recordings);
	"dwelling" means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose "structure" includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or movable structure;
	"programme" means any item which is included in a programme service;
	"programme service" has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990;
	"publish", and related expressions, in relation to written material, shall be construed in accordance with section 29R(2);
	"recording" has the meaning given by section 29T(2) and "play" and "show", and related expressions, in relation to a recording, shall be construed in accordance with that provision;
	"transgender hatred" has the meaning given by section 29P;
	"written material" includes any sign or other visible representation."'.
	New schedule 2— 'increase in sentences for aggravation related to transgender—
	1 Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increase in sentences for aggravation related to disability or sexual orientation) is amended as follows.
	2 In the heading, after "disability" insert ", transgender".
	3 In subsection (2)(a)(ii) at end insert—
	"(iii) the transgender identity or appearance (or presumed transgender identity) of the victim, or".
	4 In subsection (2)(b)(ii) at end insert ", or
	(iii) by hostility towards persons who have a transgender identity or appearance."'.
	Amendment No. 214, page 234, line 4 [Schedule 22], at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) An action under subsection (1) may include any action intending to equate sexual orientation with a propensity or intention to commit an imprisonable offence, where such action is threatening and intended to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation."'.
	Amendment No. 231, page 234, line 4, at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) When considering whether to consent to a prosecution under subsection (1) the Attorney General must have particular regard to the importance of the right to freedom of expression provided by the European Convention on Human Rights."'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 234, line 26, at end insert—
	'13A After section 29J insert—
	"29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
	Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation.".'.
	No. 215, in page 234, line 26, at end insert—
	'13A After subsection 29I insert—
	"29IA European Convention on Human Rights
	Unless expressly limited by any provision within this Part, no right under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights shall be affected."'.

Evan Harris: I am pleased to move the abolition of the ancient discriminatory, unnecessary, illiberal and non-human rights compliant offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. It is the litany of faults with those offences that explains why the new clause has attracted so much support from all parts of the House. I would like to place on record my thanks to my co-sponsors, especially to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), the hon. Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), the hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They were all were extremely helpful in ensuring that the House has this opportunity to debate the matter, and that broad support for the abolition of these offences was expressed.
	As well as being cross-party, support has also crossed lines of religious belief. I note that support has also been previously expressed by the current leader of the Conservative party—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has an excellent reputation in standing up for freedom of expression. Last time the matter was raised, support was also forthcoming from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, along with the hon. Member for Salisbury, represents a religious point of view in these matters. Let me add the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who also identifies with a religious point of view. I am grateful that 76 Members were willing to sign a potentially controversial new clause—albeit one proposed by a very sensible Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP who does not really adopt controversial positions, at least most of the time.
	The degree of support across the rest of society is also noteworthy. A letter in  The Daily Telegraph yesterday had a remarkable list of co-signatories calling for the abolition of those offences. They included the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who has spoken publicly about the need to abolish them; the author—and my constituent—Philip Pullman; my former constituent and former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries; Ricky Gervais, the comedian; Nick Hytner, the director of the National theatre; Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty; Professor Richard Dawkins, who is well known and admired by many of us; Michael Cashman; novelists Hari Kunzru and Hanif Kureishi; Sir Jonathan Miller; Baroness Frances D'Souza, who was a long-standing executive director of Article 19; and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
	Interestingly, another is the comedian and writer of "Jerry Springer: The Opera", Stewart Lee, who faced a great deal of difficulty in staging his award-winning production because of claims that it was blasphemous. Those were a catalyst for the organising of the sort of demonstrations that, although they should be permitted, should not have the imprimatur of being backed up by any part of common law. I also want to pay special thanks to the National Secular Society and English PEN, which have campaigned for a long time on this issue.
	Blasphemy is an ancient law going back hundreds of years. I do not have time to provide a full history, but it should be pointed out that the last conviction for the offences in question was in 1977, and that the last successful public prosecution was in 1922. It is an old-fashioned, ancient law that is out of time and not needed any more. One does not have to be an ultra-moderniser to recognise that.
	Those laws are also unnecessary in two significant ways. First, enough laws dealing with outraging public decency and public order offences are already on the statute book to ensure that the removal of these two offences will not lead to widespread outrageous behaviour in public. We are talking about people being able to see theatre productions, watch television programmes, attend readings, and publish books and documents for specific audiences, without the threat of prosecution under the blasphemy laws. Secondly, as has been pointed out by a number of people more qualified than me to say it, the Almighty does not need the protection of these ridiculous laws, which is why many people with a religious perspective share the view that those offences should be abolished.
	The offence of blasphemy is illiberal because its scope is uncertain. Its terms do not define—because the offence is not statutory, for one thing—what someone must do or say to be arrested, prosecuted and convicted. It is also an offence of strict liability, so not having intended to blaspheme is no defence to prosecution. One therefore cannot know when one is committing the offence, which was the main reason given by the Law Commission for seeking its abolition as long ago as 1985. Although people do not know whether they have committed the offence, it also commands an unlimited penalty, because no penalty is laid down in statute. The offence is discriminatory, in that it applies only to the Christian religion—and within that, only to the tenets of the Church of England.
	For both the reasons that I have given—the lack of clarity and its discriminatory nature—the offence does not comply with the European convention on human rights, or, indeed, with our own law now that it incorporates the convention.

Alan Beith: Is my hon. Friend not making a rather persuasive case for amendment No. 1, which seeks to make clear that free speech should not be impaired by the provisions that it amends?

John Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I find myself in some difficulty being in the same Lobby as he, but he will perhaps make this point. It is very difficult for many of us to believe that blasphemy, which is technically about the insulting of the deity, can be possibly lined up with the tenets of the Church of England, as those are difficult to discern, and most members of the Church of England disagree about them gravely.

John Hayes: Rather ungenerously, I was tempted to say that the reason why the hon. Gentleman is not attracted by slippery slope arguments is that there is no depth to which he will not fall—but to say that would be unkind and unnecessary. However, my point is that he seems to be making a case around the idea that it is a bad thing to discourage theatre directors and others from insulting, upsetting or offending people. I ask him whether it is, indeed, a bad thing to discourage people from insulting, upsetting or offending people—because that seems to be what he is saying.

Evan Harris: People will buy tickets if they want to watch the sort of stuff that is put on. That is, I think, called the free market, which is something I know the hon. Gentleman supports. I certainly do not think—and I did not think that he did—that we should start to use the criminal law or criminal offences to describe what art, literature or publishing is acceptable. That might have happened in the 17th century, but I would like to feel that I exist in the 21st century, and I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will see that that is an inappropriate form of censorship—and has been for at least the past two centuries.
	The Church of England has made it clear that it does not have any reasons in principle to oppose the abolition of these offences. The then Bishop of Oxford made clear in the debate on the abolition of blasphemy laws in November 2005 that the Church of England did not take that view; indeed, it argued that it was only a question of timing.
	That point is of some relevance to the history of repeal or abolition of these offences. The Law Commission recommended that in 1985. It was raised first, in recent times, in the House of Lords in 2001, during the passage of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, when there was a proposal for a religious hatred law. As a result of that debate, a Select Committee of the House of Lords on religious offences was set up under the chairmanship of Viscount Colville. It took evidence over a period of a year, including oral evidence on a number of occasions from various faith groups discussing not only religious hatred, but blasphemy and ecclesiastical Acts. There was then a debate in which it was made clear that the Church of England, in its evidence to that Select Committee, had argued not for retention of the blasphemy law but that religious hatred needed to be dealt with first. In February 2005, during the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, I tabled an amendment to abolish blasphemy, and the Minister at the time, the present Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said that she opposed new clause 4 on the abolition of blasphemy
	"because I do not think that this is the right time for us to repeal the blasphemy laws...we will keep the matter under review."—[ Official Report, 7 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1224.]
	The argument was that we had to deal with religious hatred first. Well, religious hatred was dealt with two years ago. There was a settlement; it is done. People are protected from the incitement of hatred against them on the basis of their beliefs when intentional and threatening language or behaviour is used. Therefore, there is no longer an excuse for prevarication. The same point was made in November 2005 by the Bishop of Oxford—and also by the Bishop of Portsmouth, who both said that once religious hatred was sorted out it would be time to abolish the blasphemy law.

David Wilshire: As a co-sponsor of the new clause, I say that the hon. Gentleman has hit on the real issue: this is not about the Church of England or even about Christianity, but it is about faith. If anyone's faith is real and strong, it should not need or seek the support and defence of the secular courts.

Jim Dobbin: I disagree with my hon. Friend. I am not suggesting that at all. The main purpose of the amendment is merely to seek reassurance.
	I know that my the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has met some Christian groups and sought to assure them that infringing the freedom of speech and of religion is not the purpose of clause 107. However, without the necessary words in the Bill, concerns will remain. It is particularly worrying that a police officer or CPS lawyer who draws a comparison between religious hatred and homophobic hatred will see that free speech is specifically protected in one but not the other.
	The joint Church submission also drew attention to the possible chilling effect on free speech, saying:
	"Uncertainty in the law has the effect of inhibiting behaviour which may not in fact be illegal. People holding firm opinions on sexuality will generally be reluctant to risk the emotional and financial costs of being challenged by a neighbour or colleague and investigated by the police, even if this does not lead to prosecution or conviction. We are not encouraged by some examples of over-zealous action by the police, apparently under current legislation, against Christians who have publicly expressed traditional views on sexuality."
	I shall list a few examples shortly.
	The Churches welcomed the narrow focus of clause 107 on threatening words or behaviour that are used with the intention of stirring up hatred, but they pointed out that in earlier debates on incitement to religious hatred a further safeguard was considered necessary to protect freedom of expression. Section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, as inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, states:
	"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
	The Churches have used that as a basis for drafting the amendment that I have tabled. However, the amendment is narrower and less far reaching, and the Churches have restricted the free speech protection to "discussion", "criticism" and "antipathy".

Nick Herbert: I want to speak to new clause 1, which proposes the abolition of blasphemy laws, and to amendment No. 1, which has been spoken to by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin). I emphasise that the Conservative party regards them both as matters of conscience that call for a free vote, and that I am speaking personally in this regard.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made the case for the abolition of the blasphemy laws perfectly clearly. He talked about their redundancy, which has become more evident since the failure of the prosecution of "Gerry Springer: The Opera". Indeed, it is hard to understand how any prosecution under the blasphemy laws could succeed when that action did not.
	As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon noted, the Law Commission recommended abolition in 1985. It could be said that that would be the natural consequence of the introduction of the incitement to religious hatred provisions, and the Government accepted that at the time.
	I agree that the existence of the blasphemy laws in this country is an impediment to the stand that we would like to take against repressive blasphemy laws elsewhere, whose effect was illustrated recently by the teddy bear case in Sudan. It is true that the blasphemy laws are limited to the Anglican Church: they cannot apply to other religions, and they do not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
	A summary of the case for abolition might be that
	"it was thought that a denial of Christianity was liable to shake the fabric of society, which was itself founded upon Christian religion. There is no such danger to society now and the offence of blasphemy is a dead letter."
	That was said by Lord Denning in 1949.
	The arguments that have been advanced for the retention of the blasphemy laws are serious ones. The argument for some kind of chilling effect cuts both ways. If the blasphemy law is repealed, what kind of signal will that send and what will be the reaction of broadcasters and others, who might no longer feel constrained as to what they could say about the Christian faith? What proposals are there to ensure that they treat the Anglican faith respectfully?

Maria Eagle: I welcome the opportunity to make the Government's position clear on the two issues that we have dealt with in the debate on this group of amendments. In speaking to new clause 1, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) set out in some detail the case for getting rid of the blasphemy laws, helped by interventions from Members of all parties. The issue has been around for many years. As he said, as long ago as 1985 the Law Commission recommended that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel be abolished. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has given quotations from eminent lawyers and others that go even further back, which shows that the issue was around even before then. We can therefore agree that the issue has been debated at great length.
	I agree with the many hon. Members who put their names to new clause 1 that it is high time that Parliament reached a settled conclusion on the issue. We accept that the offences have largely fallen into desuetude. The last prosecution for blasphemy was in 1977, in the case of Whitehouse and Gay News Ltd, as Members will recall. It follows that there have been no cases since the Human Rights Act 1998. The idea that the offences appear to be moribund was reinforced by the High Court's decision on 5 December 2007 that the Theatres Act 1968 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 prevent the prosecution of a theatre, the BBC or another broadcaster for blasphemous libel. That was the result of a case brought by Christian Voice in response to the play "Jerry Springer: The Opera". I understand that it is seeking leave to appeal.
	Against that background, I can say that we have every sympathy for the case for formal abolition. However, we believe it necessary to consult the Anglican Church before bringing forward a provision that particularly affects it. That is what we are now doing urgently. Subject to that consultation, which I can assure hon. Members will be short and sharp, the Government intend to bring forward amendments in another place to achieve the aims of new clause 1.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is correct and is assisting me greatly. The reason why the Government oppose amendment No. 1 and why we would have done so had it been tabled in Committee is that the offence as drafted in clause 107 seeks, for the purposes of making sure that we properly protect freedom of speech, to pitch the offence at the highest level. So we are not talking about insulting words or behaviour. We are talking about threatening words or behaviour intended to incite hatred against a group of people on the basis of their sexuality. That is very narrow and very clear.
	Although I appreciate the concerns expressed by many of those who have been quoted, they evidently have not read the Committee proceedings. We believe that clarity is preserved in the clause as it stands.

Dominic Grieve: Even though there may be a clarity of intention that will prevent prosecutions taking place, there is ample evidence that the lack of a saving clause of this kind will cause problems, because the public authorities and the police misinterpret what the law says. The amendment will work effectively and will in no way diminish what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve.

Maria Eagle: Unfortunately I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have had extensive debate and I stick to my position that we are okay with clause 107 as it stands. I have made the Government's views clear.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 181, clause 104, page 71, line 13, after 'person', insert 'aged 18 or over'.
	Amendment No. 11, page 71, line 24, leave out Clause 105.
	Government amendment No. 41
	Amendment No. 195, clause 175, page 121, line 12, at end insert—
	'( ) Sections 104 to 106 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, provided that the United Kingdom shall have ratified the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings prior to that day.'.
	Government amendment No. 76

Fiona Mactaggart: I have seconds to speak to new clause 2. The situation is straightforward. Hundreds of thousands of women in prostitution have been trafficked to Britain. Others have been forced into prostitution because of drug addiction, grooming—
	 It being seven hours after  the  commencement of proceedings on the  programme  motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question s necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Schedule 9
	 — 
	the Commissioner's deaths remit

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 234, line 26 [Schedule 22], at end insert—
	'13A After section 29J insert—
	"29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
	Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct related to that orientation.".'.— [Jim Dobbin.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 338.

Amendments made: No. 66, page 245, line 22, leave out 'offender' and insert 'liable person'.
	No. 67, page 245, line 25, leave out 'offender' and insert 'liable person'.
	No. 68, page 246, line 3, leave out from 'conduct' to end of line 4 and insert
	'by a person who was under the age of 10 when the conduct took place.'.
	No. 69, page 246, line 7, leave out 'offender' and insert 'liable person'.
	No. 70, page 246, line 11, leave out first 'offender' and insert 'liable person'.
	No. 70A, page 246, line 11, leave out second 'offender' and insert 'liable person'.
	No. 71, page 246, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
	'(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), if the amount of a financial penalty is specified in a currency other than the euro, that amount must be converted to euros by reference to the London closing exchange rate on the date the decision was made.'.
	No. 72, page 246, line 19, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)' and insert 'sub-paragraph (1)'.
	No. 73, page 247, line 33, at end insert—
	'( ) "conduct" includes any act or omission;'.
	No. 74, page 247, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b) "liable person" means the person required to pay the financial penalty to which the certificate relates.'.
	No. 75, page 247, line 36, at end insert—
	'( ) If the decision was made in respect of conduct by a person other than the liable person, the references in paragraph 6 to the liable person are to be read as references to that other person.'.— [Mr. Blizzard.]

Amendments made: No. 77, page 307, column 2, leave out lines 6 and 7.
	No. 78, page 307, column 2, leave out lines 27 and 28.
	No. 79, page 307, line 29, column 2, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'.
	No. 80, page 307, line 31, column 2, leave out 'paragraphs (b) and (c)' and insert 'paragraph (b)'.
	No. 81, page 307, line 47, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) In Schedule 16, paragraph 225.'. 
		
	
	No. 153, page 310, line 18, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c. 47) In section 1(4)(b) the words "under this Act". 
			  Section 3(10). 
			  In section 8(1) the word "and" after the definition of "order".'. 
		
	
	No. 154, page 310, line 18, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Police and Justice Act 2006 (c.48) Section 44(4).'. 
		
	
	Title
	 Amendment made: No. 155, in title, line 8, after 'penalties;' insert
	'to amend the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984;'.— [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In response to that point of order, I have to say that the occupant of the Chair is governed by the decisions taken earlier today when the programme motion was agreed. The right hon. Lady's comments are none the less on the record.

David Hanson: I cannot give way to three Members at once. The hon. Member for Buckingham should know that.
	In response to the hon. Member for Aldershot, let me simply say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a commitment today that the issue would be considered in another place very shortly in the context of blasphemy legislation. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).

Brian Iddon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am also grateful for the fact that we are to have a much-needed full debate on the issue of prostitution, which is of great concern to me for constituency reasons. May I ask him, however, whether he would be prepared to remove the relevant clauses from the Bill as it is today and transfer them to the final Bill? We have not discussed them on this occasion, and some of us would certainly have objected to clause 105. Removing them from this Bill and putting them into what I understand will be the fourth version would allow us a full debate on the whole subject of prostitution, and enable us to get the law absolutely right this time.

Paul Beresford: Part 13 of the Bill includes a clause on child sex offenders. On Second Reading, I raised two issues with the Minister in that regard. Two new clauses were proposed, but fell. I intend, with the help of my colleagues on the Front Bench, to pursue them in another place. I should be grateful if the Minister could examine them carefully and positively. He will find support on his side of the House, including in the Home Department.

David Heath: Without employing hyperbole, I must say that I think this has been a deplorable advertisement for the powers of this House to scrutinise legislation effectively. I am serious when I say that nothing this House does is more important than looking at criminal justice legislation. A superfluity of such legislation is going through, but it has a direct effect on the life and liberty of individuals in this country. If the House of Commons is not employed in giving it proper scrutiny before it passes from this Chamber, it is worthless in protecting the interests and liberties of this country's people.

David Amess: In this Adjournment debate, I want to explore how complaints against the police are handled. I do not expect the Minister responding to the debate to be able to reply in detail to the matters that I am about to raise, but although I never intended to develop expertise in the process involved in complaints against the police, I should be grateful if we could continue the dialogue at a later stage.
	No one likes to be the subject of a complaint. The process can be tiresome and a nuisance, but public bodies such as the police must be open to real scrutiny. The question of who polices the police is one of the matters that I want to cover tonight. In other words, to which organisations are the police responsible for their actions? In addition, I want to examine the role of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I also want to find out who enforces the judgment when the IPCC finds against the police after a complaint has been made. Finally, what is the purpose of the police authorities, and how are they independent from the police force?
	I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, and in that time there have been big changes in the way that the police operate as an organisation. It is not the role of this Adjournment debate to go into too much detail about how things have changed, but they certainly have changed. All Members of Parliament have been flooded with faxes and emails from serving police officers, complaining about their pay and conditions. The Minister will be only too well aware of that. While police officers are complaining about their pay and conditions, the general public, who pay for the service, also raise with MPs their concerns about the way in which police officers do their job today.
	I feel very strongly about the poor example of leadership given to the force by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. On 1 January he appeared on the "Today" programme—he seems not to be inhibited in any way in his dealings with the media, unlike those who have held the post before—and he said that there was a growing problem in the relationship between the police and the public whom they are supposed to serve. He is right, and I think that he is part of the problem. He talks and acts like a politician, but he has not been elected and he does not seem to be accountable.
	There is a growing sense that the police see themselves as controlling us, rather than serving us. That clearly starts at the top. The present head of the Met has politicised the job since he took over, and I can prove that. In September 2005, the head of the Met made history when he appeared on "Any Questions". That was ridiculous. If I had been Home Secretary, I would have called him in on Monday morning to find out what on earth he was playing at. He was the first serving police commissioner to appear on that programme. Listeners were treated to his opinions on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, racial segregation and the meaning of being British.
	Shortly afterwards, the head of the Met even gave the Richard Dimbleby lecture. In the same month, he openly lobbied Members of Parliament in support of the extension of the detention of terror suspects to 90 days. He cannot have it both ways. Either he is a policeman or he is a politician. He cannot continue to be both. Recently, five former heads of the armed services made speeches in the other place, but they were not in post at the time. We cannot continue with the present head of the Met giving his opinions on anything and everything. Indeed, the problem is much more serious than that.
	I turn to the terrible case of the killing—murder—of Mr. de Menezes. No Member of Parliament who has children will be content with matters as they stand at the moment. I shall not bore the House with the precise details of the case, but before the Independent Police Complaints Commission reported, the head of the Met clearly said that if it found evidence of systemic failure, he would resign. Well, the IPCC found that there was significant corporate failing, and that is exactly the same thing. We should not play with semantics. The head of the Met said that he would resign, and he has not done so. Even more appallingly, he decided that the IPCC would not be allowed to investigate the killing of Mr. de Menezes. It emerged, of course, that he had no power to decide that, and the IPCC work was soon under way. I repeat to the Minister that that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. As we all know, the Greater London authority passed a motion of no confidence, and all sorts of people have given a view about the behaviour of the Met, but its head is still there.
	The purpose of this debate is to examine the role of the IPCC. Let me tell the Minister at the outset that I have the highest regard for that organisation. It is definitely an improvement on the old Police Complaints Authority. I congratulate the chairman of the IPCC on his appointment; he has splendid hard-working staff behind him. At the end of my remarks, I will tell the Minister that I want the IPCC's powers to be increased. I have been given a splendid briefing by the Library on the powers to investigate complaints about the police. The control of policing is shared between the Home Secretary, chief constables and local police authorities, but I must say that, with the best will in the world, the system just is not working. When there is a tough complaint, we end up being given the runaround.
	All Members of Parliament take up complaints on behalf of constituents, particularly relating to the health service. Some of the issues go on for a year, or two or three years. The staff investigating the complaints move on. I think that in certain respects it is rather hoped that the complainant will eventually give up, but I will not give up on any of the issues, because I feel strongly that the system is not working.
	As an Essex Member of Parliament, I have dealt with a number of issues concerning the police on behalf of constituents, particularly when David Stevens was the chief constable of Essex, and Michael Thwaites the chief superintendent of Southend. The sort of complaints that I used to hear were that there were not enough police officers; that is hardly a new complaint. A view was taken that many of the complaints, such as those to do with graffiti and noise nuisance, were trivial, and that the police were concentrating on serious crime. All my constituents pay for the police service, and they were just not satisfied with the way in which matters were dealt with. I shall briefly mention three complaints on which I have spent a huge amount of time trying to help my constituents to resolve the issue—but, in a way, to no effect.
	On 7 November 2001, there was a terrible car crash on Hamlet Court road in Westcliff-on-Sea. It took place in heavy, congested, slow-moving traffic. The 19-year-old lady driving the car, who had her boyfriend next to her, found a vehicle coming towards her, swerved to avoid it, and crashed into a wall. She died a week later in hospital. Her mother was a magistrate. The person responsible for the accident had one eye, no car insurance and no MOT certificate. I could go on and on about all the issues involved. The Crown Prosecution Service in Essex did not do a good job on that case, to say the least. At the end of it all, the police were blamed for being a week too late in laying the matter before the court, and the person responsible for the incident ended up paying a find of £60.
	I had a debate in Westminster Hall, which was answered by one of the Law Officers—the then Solicitor-General, now the deputy leader of the Labour party. She admitted all those points—the police were at fault, the Crown Prosecution Service was at fault—but no one was held responsible. I say again to the Minister that I hope that when he gets a chance, he will ask his officials to look again at that case.
	The second case is that of Mr. Phil Collings. Mr. Collings, who happened to be a twin, died on 3 December 2004, at the age of 19 coming up to 20. He left the Talk nightclub in Southend and became involved in an altercation with a number of youths. Moments later, Mr. Collings was found not to be breathing. An ambulance was called, but Mr. Collings passed away at 3 am.
	Mr. Collings had been lying on the floor, and on top of him was the son of a local police officer. I will not go into huge detail about what went on, but the police did not inform the pathologist that Mr. Collings had suffered a blow outside the Talk nightclub. Again, the Crown Prosecution Service and the IPCC were involved. I have raised the matter in the House of Commons many times, but at the end of it all it was claimed that Mr. Collings died as a result of sudden adult death syndrome. There was insufficient evidence of a physical altercation.
	As the Minister can see, I have dealt with two cases involving youngsters. The families will never get over those deaths. The third and final case is that of Mr. Faisal Al-Ani, who died in July 2005. He died in police custody, and the case has not been resolved; it is ongoing.
	When complaints are made to the police, the police never seem to admit that they are wrong. They never apologise. One gets what I regard as an arrogant, silly, insulting letter which ends, "I am sorry that you felt the need to complain about the actions of Essex Police." I am more than sorry that I continually have to complain about the actions of police. I want some acceptance of the complaints. These are not trivial matters. None of us should ever be above the law.
	The Home Affairs Committee fourth report of Session 2004-05 made some excellent recommendations. The then Chairman of the Committee is now in the Cabinet, but there is another splendid Chairman. I understand that the Committee may well examine the way in which the IPCC works, and I hope the Minister will take those representations into account.
	There is statutory guidance as to how the IPCC should operate. The guidance makes it clear what the responsibilities of police authorities are. The role of police authorities in complaints forms part of their core duties around promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of policing locally. Section 15 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out the responsibilities of police authorities to keep themselves informed about complaints, provide the IPCC with the information and documentation that it needs, and so on.
	I have found my dealings with the police authority to be somewhat pointless. Many people do not know what police authorities do. I know what they are charged to do, and it costs a lot of money to keep the system going, but in trying to hold them to account I have found them wanting. I should be grateful if the Minister would assist me in this drive to make the Essex police authority more proactive in these matters.
	Given the current review of the complaints system, I very much hope that the Government will carefully consider making the system more complainant-centred, which would be a big step forward, and making it quicker and more open, and consider conciliatory payments. The IPCC is doing a splendid job examining complaints—huge money is being spent on this—and a judgment is made, yet the police do nothing. There is no reporting back, no apology and no suggestion of some sort of settlement. There seems to be no process whereby the hard work of the IPCC is delivered.

Vernon Coaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for raising this subject. I am also extremely grateful for the measured way in which he made his important points. The debate gives me the opportunity to explain the work of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and of police authorities in relation to the accountability of the police in England and Wales, much of which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with.
	Before I do that, given that I may not cover all the remarks and points that the hon. Gentleman made, it may be particularly helpful to say that, in respect of the cases that he has raised regarding matters of concern to him in his constituency, I will undertake to look into those with my officials and I will write to him about them. That will probably be the most appropriate way forward and I hope that it is of help to him.
	In addition, I will be happy, either on my own or with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to meet the hon. Gentleman to consider some of the issues in more detail with our officials to see whether we can take on board some of the points that he has made, and whether we can use his experience, knowledge and views to inform some of the processes and discussions that are going on at the moment about accountability but also about the stock-take that the IPCC is undertaking, which will bring forward recommendations in due course. I hope that that will help us to take these matters forward.
	The relationship between the police service and the communities that it serves is a consensual one, and it is important that the public can have confidence in the police and the safeguards put in place to ensure their accountability. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has on a number of occasions expressed his interest in ensuring that the police are accountable for their actions and that the police complaints system, as overseen by the IPCC, and the oversight exercised by police authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary are both effective, albeit that they have different remits. As the hon. Gentleman said, he met the chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, yesterday to discuss its work, and I welcome that contact. I too am impressed with the work that Mr. Hardwick has done and with the general work of the IPCC.
	As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the IPCC was established by the Government through the Police Reform Act 2002 and became operational on 1 April 2004. It has statutory guardianship of the police complaints system and has specified functions in relation to the recording and investigation of complaints and conduct matters. It provides an independent oversight of the police complaints system by holding police officers to account for their actions, and as a barometer of public opinion. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the IPCC was granted considerably more powers than those enjoyed by the Police Complaints Authority, the predecessor organisation—for example, in being given the powers to undertake independent investigations with its own trained investigators.
	In addition, the Police Reform Act 2002 provides that no commissioner, including the chair, may previously have been a police officer in any part of the United Kingdom. That is an important point. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the IPCC does not itself investigate every complaint made by a member of the public or every conduct matter that is identified. In most cases, the matter is handled by the relevant police force. That is only right, and the hon. Gentleman wants that point to have real credibility. Chief officers have responsibility for the conduct of the police officers and police staff in their force, and it was never the intention of the 2002 Act that they would relinquish that role. However, the hon. Gentleman's point is how to make the system credible and give people in the locality the confidence that the police are investigating complaints in their areas as thoroughly as they should. In many cases they do, although no doubt sometimes there are problems.
	The IPCC undertakes independent investigations into the most serious matters and may also choose to manage or supervise investigations undertaken by a police force. In those cases, once the investigation has been concluded, the IPCC will also have a role in respect of whether disciplinary proceedings should be taken against any of those involved. In many cases, there will be agreement between the IPCC and the chief officer or police authority about what action should be taken. However, when there is no agreement, the commission can ultimately direct that disciplinary proceedings be taken.
	Inevitably, there will be occasions when a complainant or members of the police service concerned do not agree with the action being taken. The IPCC, in common with many other organisations, has an appeals procedure through which its decisions can be challenged and reviewed. It can also make recommendations to chief officers as a result of an investigation. Depending on the nature of the recommendations, it is a matter for the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, the Home Office, the National Policing Improvement Agency or Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to consider them. The IPCC also chairs a "learning the lessons" committee, on which key stakeholders are represented. We hope to ensure that that makes a difference.
	Importantly, the IPCC is a statutory independent body and is therefore independent of Ministers and Government Departments, which rightly have no role in influencing the commission's decisions. There is, however, a final right of challenge available through judicial review in the administrative court.
	I turn now to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman discussed when he met the chair of the IPCC yesterday. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the complaints statistics for 2006-07 in England and Wales which were published by the IPCC on 14 November 2007, and in the increase in allegations involving neglect of duty, incivility and the quality of service that police officers provide to crime victims or others asking for their assistance.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an increase of 10 per cent. in complaints compared with the previous year. Although that is not an insignificant increase, it appears that the rate of increase has been steadying since the IPCC was established in 2004. Taken together, the categories to which I have referred account for about half the allegations made in 2006-07. Although that is clearly a matter of concern, it may also indicate that the public have a greater awareness of, and willingness to use, the police complaints system, which can only be an encouraging sign. Almost half of all complaints were dealt with through local resolution by the police. Just under a third—30 per cent.—of the complaints were investigated and, of them, 11 per cent. of allegations were upheld.
	As I mentioned at the beginning, the IPCC is currently undertaking a stocktake of the complaints system to consider how it is operating and to make recommendations for further improvements. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know it is anticipated that the IPCC will conclude its stocktake in March and will submit its views to the Home Office—together with any recommendations, which we will consider. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is given a copy of those recommendations; he may well then wish to comment on them so that he can feel involved in the process.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that police authorities have a direct role in police complaints and disciplinary matters in respect of the most senior officers within the force for which they have responsibility. Police authorities are independent bodies that hold the local police force to account on behalf of the people who live and work in that area. Their job is to ensure that there is an efficient and effective local police force that gives best value to local people. They set the strategic direction for their force and hold the chief officer to account, on behalf of the local community, for the policing service delivered. However, it is the responsibility of the chief officer to deliver those policing services.
	Police authorities have a statutory duty under the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that it is kept informed of all matters concerning complaints against the police and a role in deciding whether disciplinary proceedings should be taken against senior officers, including chief officers. They also have the power to refer certain cases to the IPCC where they consider that it would be appropriate to do so by reason of the gravity of the matter or any exceptional circumstances. A police authority cannot, however, act as an avenue of appeal for decisions made by the IPPC.
	I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's seeking to castigate Sir Ian Blair. I am happy to endorse and repeat the Home Secretary's continuing support for the commissioner and the Metropolitan police, who remain in the forefront of the fight against crime and terrorism. Sir Ian Blair did not decide that the IPPC should not investigate—he asked whether the investigation should go ahead during an ongoing counter-terrorism investigation, and he received advice from the Home Office that the law could not be set aside and that the investigation should go ahead, as it did. Sir Ian Blair and the Metropolitan police have our full confidence and our thanks and support in the difficult job that they do.
	We have had an important debate. I believe that the system does allow for independent scrutiny. There is clearly a need for us to consider the recommendations that come forward from the IPCC, and I would like to involve the hon. Gentleman in that. I will write to him about the individual cases that he mentioned, and if he would like to come and meet us to consider how we take this whole agenda forward, I will be only too happy to arrange that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Nine o'clock.